Respond 1:

How do the Person-based and Value-based behaviors explained in Cardy & Selvarajan support Jack's principles? Person and Value-based behaviors are consistent with Welch's desire for strategically dynamic, vigorous, proactive, and flat organizational structures. Welch believe these attributes give organizations an ability to dictate market behavior. Person and Value-based behavior competencies are best suited for dynamic environments that call for flexibility and nimbleness ( Cardy, p. 241).

Using an organization with which you are familiar, identify which of these approaches the organization uses and how this impacts the effectiveness of the organization's core competencies. An organization I am familiar with uses a combination of job-based and future-based approaches. Consistent with Cardy, organizational competencies reflect the most important and most time-intensive tasks and duty areas (p. 240).

The competencies reflect what is needed to do the job (e.g. knowledge of s a specific programming language, exposure to web technologies, familiarity with certain design patterns, etc.). Not surprisingly the organization is a bit hierarchical and fixed. It only resembles a future-based approach in that reflects its aspirations in the skills it wants to hire against to eventually become the organization their future direction posits they will become.

It doesn't offer unique competency the align with creating and sustained competitive advantage that is unique, hard to imitate, etc. If the organization doesn't use them, how might using Person-based and Value-based approaches impact the effectiveness of its core competencies? The person-based approach identifies individual attributes that will offer the organization the greatest potential in its human resources.

This is aligned with talent retention and holding a deep bench strength. Value-based approach identifies core values the organization wants to be known for. Collins identifies the characteristics common to Level 5 leaders: humility, will, ferocious resolve, and the tendency to give credit to others while assigning blame to themselves. Like Welch, these values center organizations in turbulent times, allow them to respond dynamically to market conditions, etc. References Cardy, R, Selvarajan, T. (2005). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Bloomington, IN: Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Collins, J, Poras, J (2002). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. HarperBusiness, 2002.

Respond 2:

Nike's core competency is creating heroes or better athletes. It has used the hero theme to create strong brand recognition and raised consumer awareness of the need for technologically advanced athletic products (Rothaermel F. T., 2015). Nike has topped it industry's competition through strong marketing, global reach and quality reputation. The VRIO model provides a framework to compare Nike's use of resources as a competitive advantage against its industry rivals (Rothaermel F. , 2017).

Valuable: Through its endorsements of sports teams and iconic sports figures, Nike has created the sense that its products make the consumer a better athlete. That feeling and the consumer's desire play basketball like Michael Jordan has added value to Nike's products. While the risk of good athletes with bad reputations could tarnish the image of Nike, the company seems to have developed a depth of sports stars that reduce the risk or at least limit any fallout until the next big star rises (Rothaermel F. T., 2015).

Rare: Nike has been an innovator in shoe design and has led the industry in creating new products for the athlete. It has also created the sense that its products, specifically limited-edition shoes, are rare by controlling the number of shoes available (York, 2015 ). Likewise, its use of sports stars whose talent is uncommon has also elevated the aura that what the consumer is getting is special. Leveraging its core competency of making heroes, has differentiated Nike by making its consumers feel that they too will be differentiated by their products (Rothaermel F. , 2017). Costly to Imitate: While Nike certainly has the deep pockets to pay for endorsements, it has raised the bar making it harder (or at least costlier) for competitors to compete on the branding strategy.

One only needs to look at Odell Beckham's matching offer pitting Nike and Adidas in a bidding war (DePaula, 2017). Even if Nike had not out-bid Adidas, it would have at least made Adidas pay a higher than planned price. Nike's team endorsements has also led to costlier prices for its competitor's to pay for similar advertisements. Nike's contract with Michigan was for $169 million (Frank, 2015). Nike has also fought off and defended its brand and image in court, challenging competitors for imitating Nike's ideas (Bain, 2015). Organized to capture value: As a global company, Nike is structure and led to be able to capture the value of its marketing, innovation and production efforts (Nike, 2016).

It has developed a world-class talent pool and has protected its branding through patents and has built a strong roster of talent to portray its hero image (Rothaermel F. T., 2015). While the company has had tremendous success, and captured substantial market share, it has also organized to be forward looking and continue on a path that only "Bo Knows" where it will rise (Bain, 2015). The VRIO framework shows that Nike's core competency of creating heroes as added value in such a way that it has a sustainable, competitive advantage over its industry's competition.