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
Current strategy and leadership thinking doesnt prioritise motivating people and setting things up so that employees, suppliers and business partners do what you want. Collaboration Strategy argues that this is fundamental to business success. In industries from pharmaceuticals to fashion, new ways of working with partners, or setting up activities using collaboration strategy have enabled businesses to grow rapidly and achieve superior profits. At the heart of this book is the authors' original collaboration framework that explains how to build a collaboration strategy for a range of different activities and industries. The authors present ten requirements for profitable collaboration and use real-life scenarios to apply their framework and analysis, offering a menu of tactics to address the most common problems in setting up collaboration with partners.
Barber, F. and Goold, M. (2014) Collaboration Strategy: How to Get What You Want from Employees, Suppliers and Business Partners. Bloomsbury ISBN: 9-781-4729-1202-2
Based on a six country survey of nearly 250 multinationals, this paper is the first empirical analysis to describe the size and composition of MNC headquarters and to account for differences among them.
Goold, M. Collis, D. & Young, D. (2012) The size and composition of corporate headquarters in multinational companies: Empirical Evidence, Elsevier Journal of International Management, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp260-275.
Why "buying to sell" can generate a much higher return on investment than the public company practice of "buying to keep".
Barber, F. & Goold, M. (2007) The Strategic Secret of Private Equity, Harvard Business Review, Volume 85, Number 9, September Link to Harvard Business Review
This paper examines the unique functions of corporate headquarters in diversified firms and reports on a survey of the structure and staffing of more than 600 headquarters in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Chile. It explores the extent to which corporate headquarters are contingent on size of the company, corporate strategy (corporate portfolio and corporate structure and policies), and governance system (ownership and regulation, and country of origin). The results confirm that factors in each of these areas are important determinants of the size and structure of headquarters. Performance data suggest that these findings are not merely descriptive but that corporate headquarters should be designed to fit the corporate strategy. Although the results are capable of alternative interpretations, analysis provides no support for the view that 'lean and mean' headquarters lead to better performance.
Download from: Strategic Management Journal
Goold, M., Young, D. & Collis, D. (2007) The size, structure, and performance of corporate headquarters, Strategic Management Journal, 28, March, 383 - 405.
Barber, F. Goold, M. (2007) Letter in the Financial Times,Temporary but intensive care is just what many businesses need, 1 March
Goold, M. & Cruise O'Brien, R., (2006) EIS and Strategic Control, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 125-127
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.
Most executives believe that corporations with large headquarters are bureaucratic, out of touch with customers, and slow to make decisions - and, so, perform poorly. That's why CEOs slash headquarters staff whenever they try to cut costs or improve performance. But do lean headquarters really perform better?
When Lean Isn't Mean]
Goold, M. & Young, D. (2005) When Lean Isn't Mean, Harvard Business Review, April.
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (2005) Growth in New Businesses Conference, Café Royal, London, 19 April
The formation of 'peer groups' within a company can bring together managers from different units for knowledge sharing and mutual learning. Yet such groups tend to deliver modest benefits rather than helping to transform the company's performance. BP, however, set up a system of peer groups and claims to have derived major benefits from them. This article attempts to find out why. Among the lessons learned are the importance of the composition of peer groups, the need for a performance culture with clear deliverables, the value of self-management processes, and the role of top management support.
Goold, M. (2005) Making Peer Groups Effective: Lessons from BP's Experiences, Long Range Planning, Vol. 38, October, pp 429-443.
Goold, M. & Collis, D. (2005) Benchmarking Your Staff, Harvard Business Review, September
Available from Harvard Business Review
Campbell, A., Goold, M., Bungay, S. & Scott, M. (2004) Chief Executives Workshop, London, 25 February
Goold, M. & Young, Y. (2004) Redesigning the Corporate Centre, in Personal und Organisation, Horst Wildemann (Hrsg.), Teil I, Organisationsentwicklung.
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.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002) Designing Effective Organisations, ASMC Conference, Café Royal London, 2 May
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 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 report the results of a recent large study of corporate centre transformation: a question which is often an early priority when a new chief executive takes office. This article summarises their approach to corporate centre design which maximises value creation.
Recognising that there are differences in the pattern of headquarters between countries, the authors base their recommendation for a corporate centre design process on three different roles played by headquarter staff: minimum corporate parent role, value-added parenting role, and shared services role. A case study of Burmah Castrol is described as an example of the method.
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 European Management Journal (Science Direct) [ Redesigning the Corporate Centre]
Goold, M. Pettifer, D. & Young, D. (2001) Redesigning the Corporate Centre, European Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 83-91, February
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
Young, D., Goold, M., Blanc, G., Bühner, R., Collis, D., Eppink, J., Kagono, T. & Jiménez Seminario, C. (2000) Corporate Headquarters; An International Analysis of their Roles and Staffing, Financial Times, May. Available directly from the Financial Times
Young, D. & Goold, M. (1999) Effective Headquarters Staff, 1998 Edition, published May
For many companies "Growth" is a primary corporate objective. The parameters by which growth is measured may vary (shareholder value, earnings per share, profits, and sales are all popular), but the aspiration to grow rapidly is widespread. Yet the pursuit of growth, especially in mature markets, can be dangerous, leading to over ambitious investments that fail to pay back and reckless acquisitions that destroy value. The growth imperative all too often drives successful companies too hard, sowing the seeds of their ultimate downfall. We need a clearer understanding of growth as an objective in order to strike a better balance between its attractions and its risks.
Goold M. (1999) The Growth Imperative, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32, No. 1 pp. 127-129
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1999) The Collaborative Enterprise - Why Links Between Business Units Often Fail - And How to Make Them Work, Perseus Books
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. (1998) Specialization or the Full Product Line, in Perspectives on Strategy, (ed) CW. Stern & G. Stalk Jr., John Wiley & Sons, pp48-51
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
Campbell, A. & Goold, M. (1998) Breaking The Barriers To Synergy, FT Mastering Management Review, Issue 15, August
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. & 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
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
Goold, M. (1997) Institutional Advantage: A Way into Strategic Management in Not-For-Profit Organisations, Briefcase in Long Range Planning, Vol.30, No.2, April
Goold, M. (1996) Where It’s An Inside Job, Management Today, October
Goold, M. (1996) Holdingstrategieen voor volgroeide activiteiten, Holland Management Review Nr.50, pp19-31
Pascale, RT. Mintzberg, H. Goold, M. Rumelt, RP. (1996) The “Honda Effect” Revisited, California Management Review , Vol. 38, No. 4, pp78-117, (MG on pp 100-102), Summer
Goold, M. (1996) The (Limited) Role of the Board, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp 572 - 575
Goold, M. (1996) The Pitfalls of Parenting Mature Companies - What Advice Should Marlowe Give the CEO?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp 22&24, Sept-Oct
Goold, M. (1996) Parenting Strategies for the Mature Business, Long Range Planning, Vo.29, No.3,
pp 358 -369
Goold, M. (1996) Strategy at the Leading Edge: New Research & Conference Reports - Parenting Strategies for Multibusiness Companies, Long Range Planning, Vo.29, No.3, pp. 419 to 421
Goold, M. & Sommers Luchs, K. (1996) Managing the Multibusiness Company: Strategic Issues for Diversified Groups, Routledge, January
Campbell, A., Alexander, M., Goold, M. & Sadtler, D. (1996) Understanding Large Companies and Why They are Demerging, ASMC pamphlet, March
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1996) Hard work if you can get it, The Observer, 7 January
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
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
Goold, M. (1995) Do Corporate Staffs Create Value?, Business Executive, Jan-Feb
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. (1994) Learning New Parenting Skills, Long Range Planning, Vol.27, No.4, pp.138-140, June
Goold, M. (1994) Strategic Control in the Decentralised Firm, Management, Journal of the Australian Institute of Management, pp.7-13, March
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) De Waarde van de Moedermaatschappij, Holland Management Review, No.41
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) Corporate Level Strategy: Creating Value in the Multibusiness Company, John Wiley, New York
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) Parent Power, The Economist, 1 - 7 October
Campbell, A., Goold, M. & Alexander, M. (1994) The Value of the Parent Company, ASMC Working Paper, April
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
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
Young, D. & Goold, M. (1993) Effective Headquarters Staff, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre paper, October
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
Goold, M. & Luchs, K. (1993) Why Diversify? Four Decades of Management Thinking, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, No. 3, August
Goold, M. (1992) What Shareholders Want Is ....: An Examination of Corporate Objectives, The Treasurer, November
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1992) Corporate Strategy & Parenting Maps, Strategic Management Society Conference Proceedings, August
Goold, M. (1992) Design, Learning and Planning: A Further Observation on the Design School Debate, Strategic Management Journal, February
Goold, M. & Sommers Luchs, K. (1992) Why Diversify? Four Decades of Management Thinking, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre paper, January
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. (1991) Strategic Control in the Decentralized Firm, Sloan Management Review, Vol 32, No 2. Winter
Bungay, S. & Goold, M. (1991) Creating a Strategic Control System, Long Range Planning, Vol 24, No 3
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (1991) From Corporate Strategy to Parenting Advantage, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24, No. 1
Goold, M. Koch, R. (1991) Brief Case:Do Raiders Create Value?, Long Range Planning, Volume 24, Number 3, p. 100, June issue
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. & Quinn, J. (1990) Strategic Controls: Milestones for Long Term Performance, The Economist Books/Hutchinson
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. & Quinn, J. (1990) The Paradox of Strategic Controls, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 11, pp43-57
Goold, M. (1990) Strategic Control Processes, Ashridge Strategic Management Centre paper, January
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
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. (1987) Twelve Management No-Nos, Management Today, October
Goold, M. (1986) Accounting and Strategy, Research & Current Issues in Management Accounting, (ed) M. Bromwich & A. G. Hopwood, Pitman
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
A report prepared for the Secretary of State for Industry by The Boston Consulting Group Limited
Dresser, JVB. Goold, M. & Hedley, B. (1975) Strategy Alternatives for the British Motorcycle Industry, A report prepared for the Secretary of State for Industry by The Boston Consulting Group Limited, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, July