Managers often want to own good businesses they shouldn't buy - or hold onto businesses they should sell. Here's how some companies have made these tough decisions.
Making trade-offs in corporate portfolio decisions, Andrew Campbell and Jo Whitehead. McKinsey on Finance. Number 51, Summer 2014. Perspectives on Corporate Finance and Strategy
Campbell, A. (2014) 'Nine sources of value from co-ordinating across business divisions', 360 - The Ashridge Journal
Almost all companies need a strategy at the corporate level that is in addition to the strategies for products or markets or business divisions. So this book is for any manager with responsibilities for multiple business divisions. It is also for any student, advisor or more junior manager who wants to understand the challenges that corporate managers face and how they make decisions.
Strategy for the Corporate Level: Where to Invest What to Cut Back How to Grow Organisations with Multiple Divisions. Andrew Campbell, Jo Whitehead, Marcus Alexander and Michael Goold, ISBN: 978-1-118-81837-4, 416 pages, April 2014, Jossey-Bass
Campbell, A. and Muir, I (2013) The Tone from the Top, 360 - The Ashridge Journal, Winter 2013/14 pp 19-23
In recognition of Professor Ikujiro Nonaka's contribution to the field of Knowledge Management this book, forming part of The Nonaka Series on Knowledge and Innovation from Palgrave Macmillan, deals with a variety of aspects of the Knowledge Management (KM) theory and the knowledge-based view of the firm.
Through the apparent heterogeneity of interests and approaches to the subject matter, a common thread goes through Professor Nonaka's important contributions to the field through the foundation of a School of Knowledge Approach in management.
By engaging in discussion and criticism, and by building upon Nonaka's insight and pioneering thinking, the contributions of this book shed light on a number of knowledge and innovation-related key facets. In doing so, the contributors provide a review of the current state of the KM theory and take stock of its major strengths and shortcomings. They also explore new research ventures in the field and suggest critical issues for further thinking.
Campbell, A. Palgrame Macmillan, Towards Organizational Knowledge: The Pioneering Work of Ikujiro Nonaka. Chapter 12 - Building Core Capabilities: The Role of Corporate Headquarters,August 2013, pp221-240.
Strategic planning processes create large, detailed documents, but often little action.
Andrew Campnbell and Hans Strikwerda propose how, in this journey to greater complexity, we may find a new simplicity - the power-of-one. Multi-dimensional structures can be made to work if other parts of the organisation are simplified.
Campbell A, Strickwerda H. The Power-of-One: Towards the new integrated organisation, Ashridge 360, Summer 2013.
Organisations are in danger of becoming more complex than we can handle. It took 20 years for the matrix structure to be accepted, but today, many companies need three, four and five dimensional matrix structures.
Campbell A., Strikwerda H, (2013) "The power on one: towards the new integrated organiaton", Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 34 Iss: 2, pp.4-12.
The corporate office consists of the CEO and the corporate functions. It is the main vehicle for delivering corporate added value. Yet corporate functions often underperform and corporate offices often fail to add value. We argue that this is because CEOs focus most of their attention on portfolio strategy and business issues and give too little attention to guiding and leading their own business - the corporate office.
Campbell A., Kunisch S and Muller-Stewens G. (2013) CEOs, Mind your Own Business! Why and How Corporate CEOs Should Pay More Attention to Corporate Functions, European Business Review
Andrew Campbell, Director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, explains how changing the model can bring greater benefits than changing the product.
View the IEDP Blog here.
Campbell, A.. (2012) Change the Model, Not the Business, IEDP.com, 18 September 2012.
Most leaders want their managers to work together for the good of the whole company. Some even have 'collaboration' or 'cooperation' or 'mutuality' as a company value. Andrew Campbell shows that a collaborative mind set is not essential for most forms of relationship. He suggests that leaders specify internal relationships more clearly, rather than make general appeals for more collaborative behaviour.
Ashridge runs courses on Organisation Design.
Campbell, A. (2012) Can we make organisations more collaborative?, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Spring.
A brief discussion about how corporate functions like IT and HR often lack strategic direction and what can be done about it.
Ashridge runs courses on Organisation Design.
Campbell, A. Kunisch, S. & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012) Are CEOs Getting the Best From Corporate Functions? Sloan Management Review,Spring 2012, Vol.53, No.3.
Collaboration is a buzzword these days. Leaders want to get people to think as one company. But managers in different functions or different business units seem surprisingly reluctant to work together. Jealousies, misunderstandings and enmity seem more common than collaboration.
View the blog at: Harvard Business Review, Blog Network.
Ashridge runs courses on Organisation Design.
Campbell, A. (2011) Collaboration is misunderstood and overused, Harvard Business Review, Blog Network. 1 September, 2011.
The typical organisation chart does not tell you much about how the organisation is supposed to work. Normally, charts are drawn in layers: all the people reporting in to a boss are on the same level and so on down the structure.
Ashridge runs courses on Organisation Design
Campbell, A., (2011) The Educated Exec: How to Draw Organisation Charts, 25. August.
It’s a hard call made harder by power struggles. CEOs can force a more thoughtful debate by asking three critical questions.
Download from: McKinsey Quarterly.
Ashridge runs courses on Organisation Design.
Campbell, A., Kunisch, S. & Muller-Stewens, G. (2011) To centralize or not to centralize?, McKinsey Quarterly,June.
Many Companies are facing a tough and uncertain future which is creating both problems and opportunities. Markets are shrinking and possibly changing permanently, financing arrangements are under pressure, share-based incentive schemes are under water and markets for talent are moving from shortage to glut.
Download from: CIMA.
Campbell, A. (2011) Crunch Time, CIMA, Risk and the Boardroom, May.
The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.
Download from: Emerald Group Publishing.
Ashridge runs courses on Business Strategy, Corporate Strategy and Implementing Strategy.
Campbell, A. (2011) Grey areas in ivory-tower strategies, Strategic Direction, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 27, Issue 4.
This paper examines the challenges faced by the fast-food chain McDonald's.
Download from: Financial Times. (Requires free registration to read full paper)
Ashridge runs courses on Business Strategy.
Campbell, A. (2011) Case study: McDonald'd, Financial Times, 5 January.
The purpose of this paper is to understand the process of strategy execution when strategy is changing.
Download from: Emerald Insight
Ashridge runs courses on Business Strategy, Corporate Strategy and Implementing Strategy
Campbell, A., Renshaw, R. & Engstrom, S. (2010) The black and white and grey of strategy, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 344 - 351.
As recent business history shows, good leaders are still capable of making flawed decisions which drag their organisations down. Jo Whitehead and Andrew Campbell explain why that happens, and what finance can do to help prevent it.
Ashridge runs courses on Business Strategy.
Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2010) Avoiding Flawed Decisions, Finance & Management, the monthly magazine of the ICAEW's Finance and Management Faculty, October 2010, Issue No.181, pp. 6 - 9.
Executives should trust their gut instincts - but only when four tests are met.
Download from: McKinsey Quarterly.
Ashridge runs courses on Business Strategy.
Campbell, A. & Whitehead, J. (2010) How to test your decision-making instincts, McKinsey Quarterly, May.
To show how irrational decisions by business and governmental leaders can be the result of their inappropriate personal emotional attachments, to other people or to other things.
Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2009) How inappropriate attachments can drive good leaders to make bad decisions, Organizational Dynamics (USA), Vol. 38, No. 2, April - June.
Finkelstein, S. Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2009) The illusion of smart decision making: the past is not prologue, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30, Issue 6, pp. 36 - 43.
Andrew Campbell and Jo Whitehead, of Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, provide insights from their newly published book, co-authored with Sydney Finkelstein of Tuck School, Dartmouth, USA: Think Again - Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions and How to Keep It From Happening to You.
Campbell, A. & Whitehead, J. (2009) Think again - how good leaders can avoid bad decisions, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Spring, pp. 6 - 11.
Campbell, A. (2009) Nothing beats old fashioned strategy, letter in the Financial Times, 8 April
To meet the challenges of the economic crisis, corporate boards must change the way they work.
Campbell, A. & Sinclair, A. (2009) The Crisis: Mobilizing boards for change, The McKinsey Quarterly, February.
Campbell, A. & Whitehead, J. (2009) Bank chiefs should have included safety checks in decision process: Companies need to flag up the risk of misjudgements, The Times, February 10.
This article continues in the book published in February 2008 by Sydney Finkelstein, Jo Whitehead & Andrew Campbell, Think Again. Visit the website here: www.thinkagain-book.com
Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2009) - Make Better Decisions
One-time Ford CEO and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was the archetypal numbers man. No human failing such as emotions could influence a decision. Like McNamara, today’s CEOs who think they’re basing their decisions only on reason are deceiving themselves – and jeopardizing the company’s viability. These authors have written a forthcoming book on the subject, and in this article they describe how leaders can understand the powerful pull that emotions have on their decisions.
Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2009) How emotional tagging can push leaders to make bad decisions, Ivey Business Journal, January/February.
Neuroscience reveals what distorts a leader's judgment. Here's how you can keep your own judgment clear.
Campbell, A., Whitehead, J. & Finkelstein S, (2009) Why good leaders make bad decisions, Harvard Business Review, February.
Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J. & Campbell, A. (2009) Think again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions and How to Keep it From Happening to You, Harvard Business School Press.
Many management teams operate in fear of their organisations becoming the target of a hostile bid from a private equity firm. Since the credit crunch, private equity activity has greatly reduced; big deals, such as the acquisition of Sainsbury's, have been abandoned; and public concern has subsided. Duncan and Andrew Campbell take the opportunity of this moment of calm to examine the economic impact of private equity and the arguments raised by its critics and supporters.
Campbell, A. & Campbell, D. (2008) The economic impact of private equity, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Spring, pp. 17 - 21.
Smarter Acquisitions - Because you can't afford for your deals to fail.
Sadtler, D., Smith, D., Campbell, A. (2008) Ten steps to successful deals Prentice Hall Financial Times, ISBN 978 0 273 71543 6.
There are two types of acquisition - integration deals and portfolio deals. Integration deals involve buying a business that will be integrated with an existing business. The business that is acquired loses its identity as a separate unit and is integrated with some part of its new parent company.
Campbell, A. (2007) Corporate Strategy: Getting Value from M&A, CEO Today, October.
Letter published in April 2007 Harvard Business Review.
How Well-Run Boards Make Decisions
In "How Well-Run Boards Make Descisions" (November 2006), Michael Useem underlines the importance of deciding what matters are reserved for the board, but gives managers no tool to help make this crucial decision......
Campbell, A. (2007) How Well-Run Boards Make Decisions, Harvard Business Review, April, pp.134-135.
Letter printed in the Financial Times.
Sir, Your bleating about Bob Nardelli's pay-off from Home Depot feels more like journalistic jealousy than considered analysis ....
Campbell, A. (2007) Nardelli pay-off - stop your bleating and second guessing, Financial Times, 10 January, p.16
Andrew Campbell contrasts the organisational implications of the 'Be ambitious' and 'Be selective' approaches to growth in order to help managers make better choices.
Campbell, A. (2007) Organising for new growth, The Economist Intelligence Unit Executive Briefing Site.
Andrew Campbell contrasts the organisational implications of the 'Be ambitious' and 'Be selective' approaches to growth in order to help managers make better choices.
Campbell, A. (2007) Organising for new growth, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Spring, pp.18 - 23.
Campbell, A. (2006) The contents of an organisation review, Organisation Planning Review Conference, 25 January
Most managers believe that growth is an imperative. They reject low-growth strategies out of hand, driving their management teams for more innovation and effort even when their businesses are in low-growth markets. Think of Unilever's "Path to Growth" strategy or the emphasis placed on innovation by Procter Gamble and General Electric.
Campbell, A. (2006) Aim low for High Returns, Financial Times, Mastering Financial Management/The Attractions of Low Growth, 2 June.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2006) Designing Effective Organisations, Corporate Research Forum, London, February.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2006) The size of corporate headquarters, European Council on Corporate Strategy, London.
When British management consultant Andrew Campbell talks about growth, the F word comes up. Failure, that is. As often as we are told that to succeed in business today one must "grow or die", we read of attempts at growth that have failed - failed miserably and expensively. In their new book, The Growth Gamble: When Leaders Should Bet Big on New Businesses - and How They Can Avoid Expensive Failures (Nicholas Brealey), U.K. management consultants Andrew Campbell and Robert Park scrutinize the field of the fallen and suggest ways of, if not beating the odds, then circumventing them.
Campbell, A. (2006) Questioning Authority, Across the Board, pp. 21 - 22, January/February.
Managers involved in acquisitions or new business development frequently face a dilemma between integrating or keeping it separate. Which is the right course of action?
Campbell, A. (2006) A tough choice: to split up or to stay together, Financial Times, Business Life Summer School: Day Eight, August, p. 12
Managers often lament the lack of collaboration among internal business units and the loss of synergies that results. Some give up altogether: Matsushita, the Japanese electronics company, recently sold its last remaining interest in Hollywood. Others struggle on with little to show for their efforts. Sony, for example, has not found much to share between Colombia Pictures and its consumer electronics businesses. A few, such as Mittal Steel, appear to be able to achieve what eludes so many.
Campbell, A. (2006) Why in-house collaboration is so difficult, Financial Times, Monday 13 February, p 14
Acquisition decisions are not like other decisions. In Chapter 1, Denzil and Peter point out that ‘most acquisitions fail’, and these are normally the main words of caution to managers. However, decisions with low success rates are familiar to most managers. Think of new product launches or management appointments or IT investments. Against these comparisons, success rates of 30-50 per cent seem quite normal. So the special feature of acquisitions is not their low success rate. The special feature is that acquisition decisions involve big stages and small prizes.
Campbell, A. (2006) Foreword, Acquisition Essentials, by Denzil Rankine & Peter Howson, Prentice Hall Financial Times
Companies often find it difficult to develop significant new businesses successfully. Andrew Campbell, Andrew Gaule and Andy Morrison report on recent research which has led to the creation of a new business tool to help managers assess the strategic viability of new business projects.
Campbell, A., Gaule, A. & Morrison, A. (2005) Managing Strategic Growth, SPS Strategy Magazine, Issue 6
What's wrong with trying to step up the flow of new ideas and initiatives? Plenty, according to the authors of a new book.
Every company has a natural flow of ideas for new products, new markets and new businesses. This flow is dependent on the overall economic environment, the industry and the company is in and the company's business model.
Campbell, A. & Park, R. (2005) Getting realistic about new growth, The Deal, November 14
Andrew Campbell, takes a skeptical look at some of Jeff Immelt's initiatives.
Maybe greed isn't good, but surely growth is. Growth, after all, is the avowed goal of most corporate managers. Plus, it sounds so healthy. But here comes Andrew Campbell with a well-researched, thoughtfully argued new book that challenges some of our basic assumptions about growth and the things companies do to try and achieve it.
Campbell, A. (2005) Can GE Really Keep Growing, The Week in Review, The Deal, October
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (2005) Growth in New Businesses Conference, Café Royal, London, 19 April
How to grow is a critical question facing all managers. Despite the number of directions in which a company can try to develop, most attempts to develop new growth fail. This article discusses and classifies the work of the major authors in the field of corporate growth in order to create a contrast between the "Be Selective" and "Be Ambitious" schools. The objective is to expose the differences and the implications for managers.
Campbell, A. (2005) Organising for New Growth: Be Selective, Die Unternehmung, May, pp.309 - 318
Corporate centres are important - they have a profound impact on the performance of the units that report into them. Some help their units achieve more than they would on their own. Some do the opposite, interfering in a way that reduces motivation and effectiveness. Most chief executives are therefore rightly concerned about the performance of their corporate centres.
Campbell, A. & Pettifer, D. (2005) How to measure the 'corporate centre', A Finance & Management Special Report, Performance Measurement, Vol. 9, September, pp. 23 - 26
Campbell, A. (2005) The Growth Gamble, Heal Network Conference Presentation, Henley Management College, September
Campbell, A. (2005) The Growth Gamble, Conference Board, Ashridge, September
This article challenges recent thinking on business growth by urging caution. It is based on Andrew Campbell’s book, The Growth Gamble: When Leaders Should Bet Big On New Businesses - and How They Can Avoid Expensive Failures.
Campbell, A. (2005) Going for gold: wait on amber, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Autumn, pp. 30 - 33
Campbell, A. (2005) Growth and new businesses, Ashridge Alumni Event,Netherlands
Campbell, A. (2005) What do we know about growth, Strategic Management Society, Orlando, USA
Campbell, A. & Bungay, S. (2005) Making Strategy Happen, Ashridge Open Day
Non-executive board members are being attacked from two sides. From one side, shareholders and legislators have been criticising non-executives for failing to effectively monitor their companies. Corporate governance scandals such as Marconi, Vivendi, Ahold and Enron are used as evidence that non-executives are not keeping a close enough watch on executives.
Campbell, A. (2005) Finding a Place for the Non-Executive Director, FT.com, 9 June
Companies as different as McDonald’s, Intel and Shell have all invested significant sums, in the last ten years, looking for new sources of growth. All have failed and at some cost to their managers, shareholders and society at large. Moreover, these companies are no exception. Research suggests that 90% or more of companies fail to find new sources of growth as their core businesses mature. If we could better understand why it is so difficult to find new growth platforms, we would be better armed to deal with the problem.
Campbell, A. (2005) Why Is It So Hard To Find New Growth Platforms?, CriticalEYE REVIEW: The Journal of Europe's Centre for Business Leaders, March - May, pp. 68 - 71, www.criticaleye.net
When the core businesses start to slow down, managers turn their attention to growing new businesses. However, despite investing considerable resources in the search for new growth, most companies fail in such efforts. Andrew Campbell offers six rules to help managers assess business growth opportunities.
Campbell, A. (2005) Discovering Significant and Viable New Businesses: Have Faith in Strategic Planning Basics, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 1
Many companies have a growth gap. Their existing businesses are not growing fast enough to meet their ambition. The solution is to add new legs to their portfolio of businesses. Yet as many as 99% of companies fail when they try to create new growth platforms. 'The Growth Gamble' is management's guide to this tough challenge and helps managers find, get into and grow new businesses. Based on extensive research, the book contradicts the received wisdom and concludes that: Corporate Venturing units do not generate new growth; most companies have few new opportunities that warrant investment; most companies spend too much on new businesses, not too little.
Campbell, A. & Park, R. (2005) The Growth Gamble: When Leaders Should Bet Big on New Business and How They Can Avoid Expensive Failures, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, ISBN 190 483 8049
Andrew Campbell looks at the difficulties that companies face when trying to expand their business into non-core areas.
The pursuit of growth regularly seduces respected companies into non-core areas, but with rare exceptions, these initiatives fail. Why is it that otherwise successful businesses are unable to develop new opportunities?
Campbell, A. (2004) The Dangers of Being Distracted, Financial Times, 17 September
Almost all units set up to create new opportunities for a company fail to develop any significant new businesses, but that is not to say that the techniques are useless - they can be harnessed for other purposes.
Campbell, A. (2004) Know The Limits of Corporate Venturing, Financial Times, Summer School, 9 August, p.11
Enthusiasm for corporate venturing waxes and wanes. So much so that best practice is easily lost for the next generation of enthusiasts. Andrew Campbell and Julian Birkinshaw provide analysis of what does and does not work and caution companies to be less ambitious and more focused.
Campbell, A. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004) Corporate Venturing In Its Place, 360° The Ashridge Journal, Autumn, pp. 6 - 10
Companies attempting to grow by entering new businesses fail nine times out of 10. The problem isn't that big companies are too risk averse. Quite the opposite - new research shows that managers go after far too many phantom opportunities.
Andrew Campbell advocates a more selective process in choosing new business ventures in order to improve success rates, and that managers and shareholders must sometimes acknowledge that low growth may be a reality, temporarily at least.
Have you thought about attending a management programme on this topic? Try [Leading a Group of Businesses>] or [Making Successful Acquisitions]
This article is available to download in full from Harvard Business Online [Stop Kissing Frogs]
Campbell, A. & Park, R. (2004) Stop Kissing Frogs, Harvard Business Review,July/August, pp. 27 - 28
Campbell, A. (2004) Commentary on German Motor Industry, BBC World Business Report, September
Campbell, A. (2004) Getting into New Businesses, Gordon Institute of Business Science, 10 June
Campbell, A. (2004) Stop Kissing Frogs – How companies successfully enter new businesses, Dynamics of Strategy Conference, Surrey Business School, 3 June
Campbell, A. (2004) The Lions Conference, Good Organisation Design, Amsterdam, 11 May
Campbell, A. (2004) The Chief Executives Forum, Organisation Design, Amsterdam, 10 May
Campbell, A., Goold, M., Bungay, S. & Scott, M. (2004) Chief Executives Workshop, London, 25 February
Campbell, A. (2003) The Future of Corporate Venturing, European Council on Corporate Strategy, Gothenburg, September
Campbell, A. (2003) Making organisations a source of advantage, HR Forum, London, May
During the height of the dot-com boom, many large firms turned to corporate venturing as a way of promoting innovation, creating a window on new technologies, retaining entrepreneurially minded employees and spurring growth. Now, four years later, corporate venture investment levels have fallen by 75%. Research indicates that the biggest mistake companies made was setting up venturing units with mixed objectives and mixed-up business models. However, companies that pursued a single objective with an appropriately designed venturing model were more successful. Analysis of nearly 100 venturing units identified five main objectives that drive the decision to set up a venturing unit. Although one common objective was found to have no successful business model, the other four objectives and their associated business models demonstrated reasonable to high degrees of success: 1. ecosystem venturing, 2. innovation venturing, 3. harvest venturing, and 4. private equity venturing.
Campbell, A., Birkinshaw, J., Morrison, A. & van Basten Batenburg, R. (2003) The Future of Corporate Venturing, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 1
Hierarchy value analysis is a useful tool for helping an organisation, large or small, to strike the perfect balance between costs and effectiveness.
Campbell, A. (2003) How Lean Do You Want Your Machine?, Financial Times, Summer School, August
Companies must understand that different venturing objectives require different business models. Research in over 100 corporate venture units by Ashridge Strategic Management Centre and London Business School identifies five types of venturing unit and analyses the key managerial challenges associated with each.
Campbell, A. & Morrison, A. (2003) Choosing The Right Venturing Model, Corporate Venturing, Issue 2, June
This provocative question - the subject of EBF's Winter 2001/2 edition (EBF Issue 8) - stirred the passions of three leading international strategy professors and a director of Orange in a live debate organised by the Association of MBAs and EBF in December 2002. Chaired by Tim Dickson. EBF's Executive Editor, the panel comprised Richard Whittington, Fellow at New College and Professor of Strategic Management at the Said Business School, University of Oxford; Joseph Lampel, Professor of Strategy at Cass Business School; Andrew Campbell, a Director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre; and Patrick Harris, then Director of Creativity at Orange and now co-founder of ThoughtEngine, a strategy and creativity consultancy.
Have you thought about attending a management programme on this topic? Try Strategic Decisions]
Campbell, A. (2003) Does Strategy Really Matter?, European Business Forum, Issue 13, Spring
This two-volume handbook presents an authoritative and up-to-date analysis of how thinking on strategy has evolved and what are the likely developments in the near future. All the contributors are experts in their area, and bring to the topic an understanding informed by many years' experience of research, teaching, and practice. Volume One focuses on two major areas: first, the various different approaches to strategy, and secondly, the development of competitive or business unit strategy, where the pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage is the key objective. Volume Two concerns itself with a variety of topics in the area of corporate strategy, principally a discussion of the role of the centre in the multi-business unit corporation, international strategy, a discussion of how to bring about strategic change, and the new, but very topical, area of organisation and decision-making in conditions of uncertainty.
Campbell, A. (2003) (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Strategy, Volumes I & II, Oxford University Press
Many companies face market and competitive conditions that have led them to adopt multidimensional, matrix organisation structures. But these matrix structures have often proved difficult for the managers working within them. This article puts forward the concept of a "structured network" as a means of overcoming the problems typically associated with traditional matrix organisations. In structured networks, the organisational units retain considerable autonomy, but collaborate extensively through voluntary networking between units. The organisation is largely self-managing, but has sufficient structure, process and hierarchy to achieve coordination and implement the corporate strategy. The objective is to obtain the benefits of interdependence that are designed into a typical matrix, but without sacrificing clear responsibilities, managerial initiative and accountability, speed of decision-making and lean hierarchy. To design a structured network, it is necessary to achieve clarity about each unit's role without hemming managers in with too much detail. It is also necessary to support mutual learning without compromising distinctive differences, to defend specialist culture units from domination by mainstream units, to promote cooperation without embarking on unnecessary synergy initiatives, to recognise shared responsibilities without diluting unit accountability, and to encourage the corporate hierarchy to add value without creating redundant overheads and interference. Organisations designed in this way will have enough, but not too much structure.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2003) Structured Networks: Towards the Well-Designed Matrix, Long Range Planning, Vol. 36, October, pp. 427 - 439
Managers often find matrix structures ambiguous, confusing and inefficient. A key reason for these problems is the lack of clarity on the roles that each unit in the matrix is intended to play. An approach is therefore proposed to describing unit roles, responsibilities and relationships in a way that is clear, but not excessively detailed and hierarchical. A new taxonomy of eight different types of unit roles is also put forward. The taxonomy forces more clarity about basic differences in roles between units, and also helps in laying out different possible organisation design options in a powerful and concise way. It is therefore an essential component in making the matrix structure work. How to achieve sufficient clarity about unit roles without descending into a level of detail that is excessively bureaucratic and inflexible is discussed. It is neither feasible nor desirable to design an organisation in great detail from the top down.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2003) Making Matrix Structures Work: Creating Clarity on Unit Roles and Responsibility, European Management Journal, June.
Managers have a tendency to invest in too many losers – what they need is an eye for ideas that make sense, and less experimentation.
Campbell, A. (2003) Wait And Watch, European Business Forum, Issue 16, Winter
Managers waste too much time and energy sponsoring new business activities and not enough on careful selection.
Campbell, A. (2003) Should Companies Be Cautious Entrepreneurs...?, European Business Forum, Autumn, pp.7 - 15
Campbell, A. (2002) Directors need to be taught about cash flow and business strategy; letter in the Financial Times, 7 October
Campbell, A. (2002) Thoughts on Organisation Design, IIR Conference, The Process of Organisation Design, Johannesburg, 7 November
Campbell, A. (2002) How Companies Successfully Enter New Business, Corporate Development Group, East India Club, London, September
Campbell, A. (2002) Organisation Design, Strategic Management Society, Paris, September
Campbell, A. (2002) The Future of Corporate Venturing, London Business School/Ashridge Conference, Corporate Venturing, September
Campbell, A. (2002) Nine Tests of Organisation Design, Conference Board Strategic Management Conference, London, May.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Designing Effective Organisations, ASMC Conference, Café Royal London, 2 May
Campbell, A. (2002) Conference Board Strategic Management Conference, May
Campbell, A. (2002) Organisation Design, GIBS Conference, South Africa, April
Campbell, A. (2002) Strategy World Congress, March
Campbell, A. (2002) Interviewed on Designing Complex Organisations, Electric Winter, January
Campbell, A. (2002) Interviewed about Ford, BBC WorldService, January
The authors argue organisations should be 'fit-for-purpose', and highlight four main drivers of fit. They provide a checklist of essential issues for managers to consider in making design choices and propose some practical tests to assess any organisation or design concept.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Fit-for-purpose Organisations, Organisations & People (The quarterly journal of AMED), Vol. 9, No. 3, August
The first law of deal making is to uncover the synergies and improvement you can realise that no one else can, says Andrew Campbell of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre. He explains why incremental value should be at the forefront of every buy-and-build strategy.
Campbell, A. (2002) The Golden Rule, The Acquirer, Summer
Van der Leest, D.J.B. & Campbell, A. (2002) Implementing Corporate Initiatives: When to use power and when and how to build commitment, London: Ashridge Strategic Management Centre paper
In complex, interdependent corporate structures, there is overlap and sharing of responsibilities between the operating units and the corporate parent. As a result, the distinction between "business" and "parent" is blurred and a focus on the role and added-value of the parent is less obviously relevant. This article explores the nature of corporate parenting in complex structures and draws out the particular demands placed on parent managers in these structures. It also examines the role of the parent's functional support staff and the complications that result from having more than one level of parenting. It concludes that there are some special parenting challenges in complex structures, but that the quest for "parenting advantage" should remain a fundamental driver of corporate strategy and structure.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Parenting in Complex Structures, Long Range Planning, 35, June
The weight of research and insight into organisational design is heavy and growing. Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell cut through the complexity and emerge with a new approach to organisation design which includes a rigorous framework for design choices based on nine key tests of organisational effectiveness.
What are the factors that should guide the choice of organisation design? There are many managerial rules of thumb about things such as spans of control and reporting relationships. In addition, academics and consultants have produced a hugh amount of work on organisation design. But our research told us that managers still lack a practical and systematic framework to guide their organisation choices. An important purpose of our work has been to condense previous ideas on organisation design in to a few core principles, on which to base a usable framework.
Goold, M. & Campbell A (2002) Nine Tests of Organisation Design, Directions - The Ashridge Journal, Summer.
Have you ever struggled to make decisions in organizations where responsibilities are not sufficiently clear? Have you labored in hierarchical structures where senior managers slow down decisions, but add no value? Have you wondered why the organization design so often makes strategies hard to implement? Designing Effective Organizations offers practical help to managers who face these difficulties.
Available from Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, tel +44 (0)20 7323 4422.
More information can be found on the Publishers web site Jossey-Bass
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Designing Effective Organizations: How to Create Structured Networks, Jossey-Bass
For most companies, organization design is neither a science nor an art; it is an oxymoron. Organizational structures evolve in fits and starts, shaped more by politics than by policies. Although most executives can sense when their organization designs are not working well, few take meaningful action, partly because they lack a practical framework to guide them. The authors of this article provide just such a framework; they present nine tests that can be used either to evaluate an existing organization design or create a new one. Four "fit" tests offer an initial screen: The market advantage test asks whether a design directs sufficient management attention to the company's sources of competitive advantage; the parenting advantage test determines whether the design gives enough attention to the corporate-level activities that provide real value to the company; the people test shows whether the design reflects the employees' strengths; and the feasibility test looks at constraints that may impede implementation. Five "good design" tests can help a company refine its prospective design. The specialist cultures test ensures that there's sufficient insulation for units that need to be different from the prevailing culture; the difficult-links test determines whether a design offers solutions for potentially problematic unit-to-unit links; the redundant-hierarchy test asks whether the design has too many parent levels; the accountability test looks at whether every unit has suitable controls; and the flexibility test ensures that the design lets the company adapt to change. Once a design is altered, the tests should be repeated. Organizational decisions are inevitably complex, and tweaking one part of the design may produce unanticipated consequences elsewhere.
This article is available to download in full from Harvard Business Online [Do you have a Well Designed Organization]
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Do you Have a Well Designed Organization, Harvard Business Review, March, pp. 117 - 124
The authors, expert observers of mergers and acquisitions, analayse the many studies describing the most common reasons why such couplings fail to add value. The success rate is remarkably low given the vast numbers of cases from which to learn. Human nature may be less amenable to rational analysis than we link to think.
Campbell, A. & Sadtler, D. (2001) Why Acquisitions Fail, Market Leader, Summer
Campbell, A. (2001) BBC News Interview with Michael Sarget and photo session, 10 Oct 3pm
Campbell, A. (2001) (Interview) BBC1 Business Breakfast discussion about BMW, 21 March
Following interviews with financial service companies in the European Union, the authors propose an 'E-Agenda' for corporate parents or corporate centres in the light of the Internet and e-commerce. The Agenda consists of three broad elements: Existing business initiatives; New business ventures; Corporate level strategy review. The parental role or model faces a large range of options as a result of the Internet and e-commerce; the author's E-Agenda will help companies to navigate these options.
Park, R. & Campbell, A. (2001) E-Commerce in Financial Services: An E-Agenda for the Corporate Parent, European Management Journal, Vol. 19
Pettifer, D. Campbell, A & Dennett, L. (2001) Creating the E-Corporate Centre, PricewaterhouseCoopers, July
Corporate initiatives are an essential tool for improving an organisation's performance. They are the main vehicle through which the corporae centre creates additional value in its portfolio of businesses. However many initiatives are less than satisfactory and become "stuck", diverting energies and straining relationships. This paper gives a framework with nine root causes which can diagnose why an initiative has become stuck. The framework enables corporate managers to take more targeted actions which can free the initiative more quickly and with less unintended damage than traditional fixes. The paper also addresses a key corporate dilemma of knowing how ard to push an initiative that is starting to stick. Is this resistance due to a dislike of imposed change or are there good reaons for resisting it?
Darragh, J. & Campbell, A. (2001) Why Corporate Initiatives Get Struck, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, No.1, pp. 33 - 52, February
Campbell, A. (2000) A New Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, European Business Forum, Issue 1, Spring
Campbell, A. (2000) foreword to 'Agree on Intent' by Derkjan van der Leest, Elsevier Business Information
Campbell, A. (2000) The Seduction of the General Management Ideal, Management Today, Vol. 16, No. 4, May
Campbell, A. (2000) Is the Rhine Model holding Europe back?, The annual conference on Stewardship and Performance by Hermes 20th October
Campbell, A. (2000) What is Strategic Planning?, BAM Edinburgh, 14th September
Campbell, A. (2000) Strategic Planning, ITTI Ashridge, 24th August
Campbell, A. (2000) Does Organisation Matter, The Gordon Institute Business Forum in Johannesburg, 6th June
Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (2000) New Developments in Strategy for the E-Economy, one day seminar with IIR, South Africa, 15 June
Campbell, A. (2000) Interview with Alex Hogg, Radio 702, South Africa, 8 June
Campbell, A. (2000) Interview with Summit TV, South Africa, 6 June
This article provides a framework for companies that wish to conduct an audit of how well their approach to synergy management is working. The framework, which has been used successfully by several companies, provides a practical and systematic way of pinpointing unrealized opportunities and creating an agenda of initiatives for addressing them. A detailed illustrative example shows how the framework was used in a specific company.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2000) Taking Stock of Synergy; A Framework for Assessing Linkages Between Businesses, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp 72 - 96, February
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1999) The Collaborative Enterprise - Why Links Between Business Units Often Fail - And How to Make Them Work, Perseus Books
Campbell, A. (1999) Going Global Strategically, Communique, Autumn/Winter
Campbell, A. (1999) Management Thinkers Step Up to the Plate, Across the Board, Nov/Dec
Campbell, A. (1999) Case 4.3 The Body Shop International: The Most Honest Cosmetic Company in the World, in Relationship Marketing by Peck, Payne, Christopher, Clark; Butterwork Heinemann
Companies need to stop chasing best-in-class models for their corporate planning processes and play to their own strengths instead.
In today's competitive environment, every company has an action plan. Yet for most managers, the processes used to create those plans don't work. In a survey of management attitudes about such processes, three-quarters of the respondents said their company's planning was unsatisfactory. "Strategic plans are documents that you prepare for the corporate center and later forget" is a common complaint. And yet it isn't as if companies don't try.
Campbell, A. (1999) Tailored, Not Benchmarked - A Fresh Look at Corporate Planning, Harvard Business Review, March - April
Pettifer, D. Campbell, A. (1998) Corporate Centre Transformation, PWC
Pettifer, D. Campbell, A. (1998) Measuring the Performance of the Corporate Centre, Briefcase in Long Range Planning, Volume 31, No. 5, October
Campbell, A. (1998) Role of Corporate Centre in Globalisation, Strategic Management Society (SMS), Orlando, USA, 1 - 3 November
Campbell, A. (1998) Synergy, Unilever HR Conference, October
Campbell, A. (1998) Corporate Transformation: Global Trends, London Business School Conference, 24-27 June
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) Breaking The Barriers To Synergy, FT Mastering Management Review, Issue 15, August
Campbell, A. (1998) Bifurcating Barclays, letter to editor, The Financial Times, p. 20, 8 December
Campbell, A. & Sadtler, D. (1998) Corporate Breakups, Strategy & Business, Issue 12, Third Quarter, pp. 64 - 73
Campbell, A. (1998) The New Business Enlightenment, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 147 - 149
Campbell, A. (1998) Banks Store Up More Suffering Than Joy, The Financial Times, 23 April
Campbell, A. (1998) Management, Not Mass, Is What Matters, letter to editor, The Financial Times, 28 March
Campbell, A. & Sadtler, D. (1998) Case 12: Corporate Strategy At Grand Metropolitan in De Wit, B. & Myer, R. Strategy: Process, Content, Context, An International Perspective, 2nd Edition, International Thomson Business Press, pp. 1074 - 1090
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) Corporate Level Strategy, in Ambrosini, V. Johnson, G. & Scholes, G. Exploring Techniques Of Analysis And Evaluation In Strategic Management, Prentice Hall Europe
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) SYNERGY: Why Links Between Business Units Often Fail And How To Make Them Work, Capstone
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1998) Creating A Sense Of Mission, in De Wit, B. & Myer, R. Strategy: Process, Content, Context, An International Perspective, 2nd Edition, International Thomson Business Press, pp. 874 - 885
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) Adding Value From Corporate Headquarters, in De Wit, B. & Myer, R. Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective, 2nd Edition, International Thomson Business Press, pp. 484 - 500
Campbell, A. (1998) Case 22: The Body Shop International - The Most Honed Cosmetic Company in the World, in De Wit, B. & Meyer, R. Strategy: Process, Content, Context, An International Perspective, International Thomson Business Press
Alexander, M., Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) The Value of the Parent Company, in De Wit, B. & Meyer, R. Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective, International Thomson Business Press
Managers can separate the real opportunities for synergy from the mirages, say Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, by taking a more disciplined approach to synergy, Corporate executives have strong biases in favour of synergy, and those biases can lead them into ill-advised attempts to force business units to cooperate - even when the ultimate benefits are unclear. These biases take four forms: 1) the synergy bias, which leads executives to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs of synergy; 2) the parenting bias, a belief that synergy will be captured only by cajoling or compelling business units to cooperate; 3) the skills bias 0 the assumption that whatever know-how is required to achieve synergy will be available within the organization; and 4) the upside bias, which causes executives to concentrate so hard on the potential benefits of synergy that they overlook the possible downside risks. In combination, these four biases make synergy seem more attractive and more easily achievable than it truly is. As a result, corporate executives often launch initiatives that ultimately waste time and money and sometimes even severely damage their businesses. To avoid such failures, executives need to subject all synergy opportunities to a clear-eyed analysis that clarifies the benefits to be gained, examines the potential for corporate involvement, and takes into account the possible downsides. Such a disciplined approach will inevitably mean that fewer initiatives will be launched. But those that are pursued will be far more likely to deliver.
Have you thought about attending a management programme on this topic? Try [Leading a Group of Businesses]
This article is available to download in full direct from Harvard Business Online [Desperately Seeking Synergy]
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1998) Desperately Seeking Synergy, Harvard Business Review, pp. 131-143, September-October
Goold, M., Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1998) Corporate Strategy & Parenting Theory – Briefcase, Long Range Planning, April
This paper provides a brief summary of what we at the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre believe we have learned about corporate strategy over the last ten years. It lays out the basis for our ideas about corporate parenting and the implications of parenting theory for management decisions. It is structured around nine propositions, each of which attempts to convey both what we have learned and why it matters. The paper concludes with our views about where future research priorities should lie.
Have you thought about attending a management programme on this topic? Try [Group Level Strategy]
This article is available to download in full direct from Long Range Planning (Science Direct) [Corporate Strategy and Parenting Theory]
Goold, M., Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1998) Corporate Strategy & Parenting Theory – ASMC (10th anniversary), April
Sadtler, D., Campbell, A., and Koch, R., (1997) Breakup! When Large Companies are Worth More Dead Than Alive, Capstone (Also published in paperback in 1998 and in the USA in 1997 by the Free Press).
Campbell, A. (1997) Corporate Level Strategy, National Strategic Planning Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 7 July
Campbell, A. (1997) Corporate-Level Strategy, Indonesia’s First Annual Conference on Corporate Strategy, Jakarta, 3 July
Campbell, A. & Argenti, J. (1997) Stakeholders: Cases For And Against, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 442 - 445, and 446 - 449, June
[What's Wrong with Strategy?]
Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1997) What’s Wrong With Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November/December
Campbell, A. (1997) No Hare-Brained Strategy For Survival, Letter in Financial Times, 12 September
Campbell, A. (1997) Diversification Strategy, Network (Strategic Leadership Forum), February/March
Campbell, A. (1997) Mission Statements, Briefcase, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 931 - 932, December
Campbell, A. (1997) Breakout With A Break Up, The World In 1998, The Economist, November
This book gives an up to date picture of what industry experts have said on the subject of core competencies and how it relates to business practice. The book consists of thirteen articles by International experts in their fields.
Campbell, A. & Sommers Luch, K. (1997) Core Competency-Based Strategy, International Thomson Business Press, ISBN 186 152 2738
Recently the most famous conglomerate in the USA, the largest Industrial company in the USA, the largest conglomerate in the UK and the largest public utility in Britain have all elected to break up. This book explains why breakup is on the agenda of so many companies, it is because all corporate centres destroy value. This book heralds a new belief in markets and capitalism. It demonstrates a new realism in management. This book explains how to survive and prosper in the new business era.
Campbell, A. Sadtler, D. & Koch, R. (1997) Break Up! Why Large Companies are Worth More Dead than Alive, Capstone Publishing, January
Campbell, A. (1996) Reviewing Portfolio Strategy, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 892 - 894, December
Campbell, A. (1996) Decentralisation Contracts, Financial Focus, June
Campbell, A., Alexander, M., Goold, M. & Sadtler, D. (1996) Understanding Large Companies and Why They are Demerging, ASMC pamphlet, March
Campbell, A. (1996) Home Economics, Building , 19 January
Campbell, A. (1996) At Stake, The Economist, 28 September
Campbell, A. (1996) End of Empires, The Sunday Times, 18 August
Campbell, A. (1996) Advice Squad, Building, 30 August
Campbell, A.(1996) Can the Body Shop Shape Up?, Fortune, 15 April
Campbell, A. (1996) Widow Hanson’s children leave home, The Economist, 3 February
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1996) Hard work if you can get it, The Observer, 7 January
Goold, M., Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1995) Corporate-level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company, Manageris - la lettre de synthese des meilleurs ouvrages de Management, No. 25, March
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1995) The Value of the Parent Company, California Management Review, Vol.28, No.6, pp.107 - 108
While the core competence concept appealed powerfully to companies disillusioned with diversification, it did not offer any practical guidelines for developing corporate-level strategy. To fill the gap, the authors propose the parenting framework, with tools for answering two questions: Which business should a company own? What parenting approach will get the best performance from those businesses? To determine the fit between a parent and its businesses, corporate strategists should look at four areas: the critical success factors of the business, the parenting opportunities in the business, the characteristics of the parent, and the financial results. Next, to determine which businesses to keep and which to divest, they should rank them into five categories: those that fit well; those that fit in some ways; those that fit but have little potential; those with a p possibility of value destruction; and those that fit in parenting opportunities but not in critical success factors.
Have you thought about attending a management programme on this topic? Try [Group Level Strategy]
This article is availble in full direct from Harvard Business Online [Corporate Strategy: The Quest for Parenting Advantage]
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1995) Corporate Strategy: The Quest for Parenting Advantage, Harvard Business Review, March - April
Alexander, M., Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1995) A Good Fit?, Business Strategy International, First Quarter
Alexander, M., Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1995) A New Model for Reforming the Planning Review Process, Planning Review, Vol. 23, No.1
Alexander, M., Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1995) Parenting Advantage: The Key to Corporate Level Strategy, Prism, Second Quarter
Campbell, A. (1995) The Cost of Independent Chairmen, Brief Case article in Long Range Planning, Vol.28, No.6, pp.107 - 108
Campbell, A. (1995) Mission, Vision and Strategy Development, in S. Crainer (ed), The Financial Times Handbook of Management, FT/Pitman Publishing
Campbell, A. (1995) Vertical Integration: Synergy or Seduction?, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 126 - 128, April
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) Parent Power, The Economist, 1 - 7 October
Campbell, A. (1994) Strategic Planning Defended, Strategic Planning Society News, August
Campbell, A. (1994) The Strategic Connection: Mission, Strategy and Values, in Berger, Lance A, Martin J Sikora with Dorothy R Berger, The Change Management Handbook, Irwin Professional Publishing, Chapter 10, pp.122 - 132
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1994) Mission Statements Can Also Be Harmful, Financial Focus, May 1994, Issue 10, pp.10 - 11, Journal of ICAEW
Campbell, A. (1994) Brief Case: Managing Diversification and Business Development, Long Range Planning, Vol.27, No.2, pp.128 - 130, April
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) The Value of the Parent Company, ASMC Working Paper, April
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) De Waarde van de Moedermaatschappij, Holland Management Review, No.41
Goold, M., Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1994) How Corporate Parents Add Value to the Stand-Alone Performance of Their Businesses, Business Strategy Review, Vol.5, No.4
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) Corporate Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company, John Wiley, New York
Alexander, M. Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1994) Valuing the Corporate Parent, Directions - The Ashridge Journal, December
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1994) Corporate Strategy & Parenting Maps, from the Strategic Management Society series, in, Building the Strategically Responsive Organization, (ed) H. Thomas, D. O'Neal, R. White & D. Hurst, John Wiley & Sons
Goold, M. Campbell, A. & Alexander, M. (1994) The Fall and Rise of Corporate-Level Strategy, Strategic Planning Society News, September
Goold, M. Campbell, A. & Luchs, K. (1993) Strategies and Styles Revisited: ‘Strategic Control’ - is it Tenable?, Long Range Planning, Vol.26, No.6, pp.54 - 61, November
Goold, M. Campbell, A. & Luchs, K. (1993) Strategies and Styles Revisited: Strategic Planning and Financial Control, Long Range Planning, Vol.26, No.5, pp.49 - 60, October
Campbell, A. (1993) Brief Case: The Purpose of the Firm, Long Range Planning, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.140 - 141, December
Campbell, A. (1993) Do Diversified Companies Make Sense?, article for presentation on Research Day, AMC, 9 September
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1993) Creating A Sense of Mission, Abstract in Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.10, No.1, January
Koch, R. Campbell, A. (1993) Wake Up & Shake Up Your Company, Pitman Publishing
Campbell, A. (1993) Mission: The Leader's Most Important Task, in Strategic Thinking and the Management of Change: International Perspectives on Organisational Dynamics, (ed), Ralph Stacey, Kogan Page
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1992) The Meaning of Mission, in The Complete Guide to Modern Management II, (ed) Robert Heller, Sterling Publications Limited, London
Campbell, A. & Sommers Luchs, K. (1992) Strategic Synergy, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, Oxford
Campbell, A. & Sommers Luchs, K. (1992) (eds) Building Core Skills, in Strategic Synergy, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd, Oxford
Campbell, A. (1992) The Power of Mission: Aligning Strategy and Culture, Planning Review, Vol.20, No.5, September/October
Campbell, A. (1992) Why do Companies Over-Diversify?, The Planning Forum Network, Vol.15, No.7, September
Campbell, A. (1992) Brief Case: Why Do Companies Over-Diversify?, Long Range Planning, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 114 -116
Campbell, A. (1992) Boo Anyone who Advocates Balance, Strategic Planning Society News, July/August
Campbell, A. (1992) The Simple Art of Synergy, Mentor Magazine, Issue 1, March/April
Campbell, A. Devine, M. & Young, D. (1992) Due Project D'Entreprise A L'Engagement Personnel: Le Sens de la Mission, (French translation of A Sense of Mission), Les Editions D'Organisation, Paris
Campbell, A. & Tawadey, K. (1992) La Mision de los Negocios, (Spanish translation of Mission and Business Philosophy) Ediciones Diaz de Santos SA
Campbell, A. Devine, M. & Young, D. (1992) Vision, Mission, Strategie: Die Energien des Unternehmens aktivieren, (German translation of A Sense of Mission) Campus Verlag, New York/Frankfurt
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1992) Corporate Strategy & Parenting Maps, Strategic Management Society Conference Proceedings, August
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1991) Corporate Strategy and Parenting Skills, October
Campbell, A. & Goold, M.(1991) Building Core Skills, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre paper, October
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1991) From Corporate Strategy to Parenting Advantage, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 1
Campbell, A. (1991) The Siren Song of Synergy, The Planning Forum, 1991, International Conference Executive Summary
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1991) Brief Case: Mission, Vision and Strategic Intent, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 4, August
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S.(1991) Creating a Sense of Mission, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 10 - 20
Campbell, A. (1991) Brief Case: Strategy and Intuition - A Conversation with Henry Mintzberg, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 2
Campbell, A. (1991) Gelebte Unternehmensphilosphie, Focus, Egon Zehnder International, No.1
Campbell, A. (1991) A Mission to Succeed, Director, February
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1990) Missionary Zeal, Ashridge Management Review, Winter
Campbell, A. (1990) Learning and Sharing in Multi-Business Companies, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre Paper, November
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1990) Missionaries of the Corporate Culture, Management Consultancy, November
Campbell, A. (1990) Linkages and Synergy, Progress Review, February
Campbell, A., Devine, M. & Young, D. (1990) A Sense of Mission, Economist Books/Hutchinson, October
Campbell, A. & Tawadey, K. (1990) Mission and Business Philosophy, Heinemann
Campbell, A. & Yeung, S. (1990) Do You Need a Mission Statement?, Special Report No 1208, Economist Publications, July
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1990) Managing Diversity: Strategy and Control in Diversified British Companies, in Strategische Unternehmungsplanung, Strategische Unternehmungsführung, (ed) Dietger Hahn & Bernard Taylor, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg
Goold, Michael and Andrew Campbell, (1990) Non-Executive Directors' Role in Strategy, Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 6
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1990) Pitfalls of Planning, Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 3
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1990) Corporate Strategy: The Rationale for a Group of Companies, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre Paper at SMS Conference, Stockholm, September
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1990) Adding Value from Corporate Headquarters, International Review of Strategic Management, Vol.1 (ed) D.E.Hussey, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1989) Brief Case: A Portfolio of Commentary, Opinion, Research and Experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 4
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1989) Planning Games, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 2, April
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1989) Brief Case: A Portfolio of Commentary, Opinion, Research and Experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.126 - 127, April
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1989) Diversification, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 1, February
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1989) Brief Case: A Portfolio of Commentary, Opinion, Research and Experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No.1, pp.131 - 133, February
Campbell, A. (1989) Are You Getting All You Want From Headquarters?, Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 132 - 134, December
Campbell, A. (1989) Does Your Organisation Need a Mission?, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol.10, No.3
Campbell, A. (1989) How We All Profit From Good Parenting, Management Consultancy, September
Campbell, A. (1989) Mirrors and Windows, Harvard Business Review, July - August
Campbell, A. (1989) Mission Impossible?, Public Relations, March
Campbell, A. (1989) Missions Matter, Strategic Planning Society News, February
Campbell, A. (1988) Free Speech Column, Financial Decisions, December
Campbell, A. (1988) What is Business For?, Strategic Planning Society News, November
Campbell, A. & Winterburn, D. (1988) Organisational Development through Management Development: The United Biscuits Example, special issue Lessons from Success of Journal of the Association for Management Education and Development, Autumn
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) Strategic Management Styles, in Competitiveness and the Management Process, (ed) A M Pettigrew, Basil Blackwell
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) Managing the Diversified Corporation: The Tensions Facing the Chief Executive, Long Range Planning, Vol.21, No. 4
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) The Corporate Centre: Is It Good for Business?, The Ashridge Management Review, Winter
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) The Best Way to Manage, Finance, Summer
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) Adding Value from Corporate Headquarters, London Business School Journal, Vol.12, No.1, Summer
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1988) Financial Control and GEC, Finance, Spring
[Many Best Ways to Make Strategy]
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1987) Many Best Ways to Make Strategy, Harvard Business Review, Vol.65, No.6, November - December
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1987) Managing Diversity: Strategy and Control in Diversified British Companies, Long Range Planning, Vol.20, No.5
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1987) Strategies and Styles, Basil Blackwell, November
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1986) Managing Diversity, Centre for Business Strategy Working Paper Series, No. 17, October
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1986) Strategic Management Styles, Centre for Business Strategy Working Paper Series, No. 16, October
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1986) Further Thoughts on the Essential Nature of Strategy, London Business School Journal, Vol.10, No.2, Summer