Strategic beliefs of port authorities

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of relevant contributions on port authority strategy.

Concept/theories	Selection of authors/contributions	Arguments/explanations for PA strategy
Institutional perspective
Port administration model	Baird (2000), Brooks (2004), Brooks and Cullinane (2006), Chen (2009), de Langen and Heij (2014), Notteboom, De Langen and Jacobs (2013), Vieira, Kliemann Neto, and Amaral (2014) and Wang, Ng, and Olivier (2004)	PA’s position and role changes due to port governance reform; coordination plays a substantial role in port governance
PA strategy related to port operators/concessions	Goss (1990)	The division of responsibilities in ports over a public authority and private actors asks for a strategic reorientation of the port authority, ranging from a minimalist strategy to a pro-active strategy
	Notteboom (2006) and de Langen, Van Den Berg, and Willeumier (2012)	Risk of market failure in port operations, due to limited intra port competition induces an active concession policy of PAs
Collective action, cluster theory	de Langen (2004), de Langen and Pallis (2007) and Verhoeven (2010)	Cluster theory, that is, the concept of collective action problems and the existence of coordination costs, brings arguments for PAs to develop cluster management strategies
Strategic perspective
Strategic scope, business models	Coeck, Notteboom, Verbeke, and Winkelmans (1996), Dooms et al. (2013), van der Lugt et al., (2013), Verhoeven (2010) and Hollen et al. (2013)	Due to more autonomy and more financial self-sustainability, PAs develop new strategies and new business models. Outcome varies based on port’s background ranging from conservative to entrepreneurial including internationalisation strategies that build upon capabilities
Strategic fit	Baltazar and Brooks (2007)	The strategic fit approach asks PAs to establish a fit between the port’s environment, the port’s structure and the port’s strategy
Relational/network perspective
Interdependence, co-evolution	Child et al. (2012), Hall and Jacobs (2010) and van der Lugt et al. (2014)	Organisational proximity/interdependence between port authority and port operators influences the way in which strategy of PAs can be developed and the way in which the strategic relationship between PA and port operators might develop
Stakeholder management	Dooms and Verbeke (2007), Dooms et al. (2013) and Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin (2012)	Stakeholders play an important role in port development and influence PAs accordingly for their strategy making
Geographical perspective
Port regionalisation	Chlomoudis and Pallis (2004), de Langen (2008), Monios (2015), Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005), Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001), Robinson (2002) and Rodrigue, Debrie, Fremont, and Gouvernal (2010)	Increased importance of chain performance together with high level of fragmentation in inland chains give impulse to PAs to expand the strategic domain beyond the borders of the port
Strategic fit	Baltazar and Brooks (2007)	The requirement for a strategic fit between structure, strategy and environment in ports asks for a active role of PAs in establishing such a fit

Table 2. Measurement tool for mapping executives’ strategic beliefs.

	Strategy topics	Strategy paradoxes	Explanation
Strategy process	Strategic thinking	Logic versus Creativity	Sets rational reasoning against generative reasoning
	Strategy formation	Deliberateness versus Emergence	Sets strategic planning against strategic incrementalism
	Strategic Change	Revolution versus Evolution	Sets a discontinuous renewal perspective against a continuous renewal perspective
Strategy content	Business level strategy	Markets versus Resources	Sets an inside-out or resource-based approach against an outside-in or market opportunities approach
	Corporate level strategy	Responsiveness versus Synergy	Sets a portfolio organisation with large autonomy for the different units against an integrated organisation with less autonomy for the different units
	Network level strategy	Competition versus Cooperation	Sets a discrete competitive organisation against an embedded cooperative organisation with an independent position
Strategy context	Industry context	Compliance versus Choice	Sets industry dynamics against industry leadership
	Organisational context	Control versus Chaos	Sets leadership and control against dynamics and chaos
	International context	Globalisation versus Localisation	Sets a global convergence perspective against an international diversity perspective
	Organisational purpose	Profitability versus Responsibility	Sets stakeholder value against shareholder value

Source: Meyer (2007).

Figure 1. Mean score of executives of set of “regular” firms (n = 125). Source: representation of results of Meyer (2007).

Figure 2. Comparing PAs (n = 65) with mixed set of private companies (n = 125).

Figure 3. Corporatised/privatised PAs (N = 20) versus non-corporatised PAs (N = 45).

Appendix 1. Items in the survey.

	ITEMS in survey
1.1	To understand strategic issues, successful managers depend heavily on their analytical capabilities	Logic
1.2	Formulating strategies requires strong logical thinking	Logic
1.4	Managers should be highly rational in developing strategy	Logic
1.7	Strategies should be based on facts, not on impressions	Logic
1.8	It is dangerous to take bold strategic action without extensive market analysis	Logic
1.13	The best strategists are more analytical than creative	Logic
2.1	To understand strategic issues, successful managers depend heavily on their intuitive capabilities	Creativity
2.2	Formulating strategies requires strong creative thinking	Creativity
2.11	Strategizing should be driven by creativity and supported by analysis	Creativity
2.13	The best strategists are more creative than analytical	Creativity
2.14	In making strategy, original ideas are more important than the cold facts	Creativity
2.15	Successful strategizing is more about being inventive than about being analytical	Creativity
3.1	Detailed long-term planning is valuable for coordinating strategic developments within a firm	Deliberateness
3.2	Firms should forecast long-term developments and plan accordingly	Deliberateness
3.3	Firms should first formulate strategic plans and then implement them	Deliberateness
3.4	Firms should plan their investments and activities in advance	Deliberateness
3.9	Detailed strategic plans are valuable, because they specify goals against which progress can be measured	Deliberateness
3.11	Detailed strategic plans are essential for firms to set investment priorities	Deliberateness
4.1	Successful managers set a general strategic direction and then fill in the details along the way	Emergence
4.9	Making detailed strategic plans is a waste of time	Emergence
4.11	A good strategy is not a detailed long-term plan, but a guideline for the further exploration of opportunities	Emergence
4.15	Strategies should be broad guidelines, not rigid plans	Emergence
5.1	To achieve a major change, managers should push through all necessary measures in a swift, bold move	Revolution
5.5	Organizational change should be radical, to break through employees’ old habits and routines	Revolution
5.7	Managers expecting organizational changes to take years of gradual development lack ambition	Revolution
5.12	Advocating evolutionary change is the best way to ensure that no real changes will happen at all	Revolution
5.13	A revolutionary approach to organizational change is better than an evolutionary one	Revolution
5.14	A gradual approach to organizational change usually leads to very few changes at all	Revolution
6.1	To achieve a major change, managers should implement many moderate changes one after the other	Evolution
6.2	Major organizational change works best through continuous small improvements	Evolution
6.4	Major change should be the result of a continual development process	Evolution
6.5	Organizational change should be moderate, to allow employees to learn and adapt their routines	Evolution
6.11	Organizations are like oil tankers, whose course can only be changed gradually	Evolution
6.13	An evolutionary approach to organizational change is better than a revolutionary one	Evolution
6.14	Pursuing revolutionary change usually creates huge resistance and low acceptance	Evolution
7.2	If companies jump at market opportunities, they can always develop the necessary competences and technologies to match	Markets
7.5	Firms should pursue the best market opportunities, not necessarily the ones closest the firm’s current competences	Markets
7.9	Firms that focus on building their core competences are usually too slow in capturing shifting market opportunities	Markets
7.12	Firms should jump at market opportunities first and worry how to acquire the necessary resources and skills later	Markets
7.13	Staying close to your core competences is a too conservative approach	Markets
7.14	Successful firms are willing to throw away their core competences if market opportunities are better elsewhere	Markets
8.1	The starting point of all strategizing should be the distinctive capabilities of the firm	Resources
8.3	Firms should stick to their core technologies and capabilities, seeking new markets where they can be applied	Resources
8.5	Firms should always stay close to their core competences	Resources
8.9	Having superior technologies and capabilities is more important than being first on the market	Resources
8.13	Firms should focus on the market opportunities closest to their core competencies	Resources
8.14	Stay close to the firm’s current strengths, instead of chasing wild new market opportunities	Resources
9.2	Each business unit within a corporation should have considerable freedom to determine its own strategic direction	Responsiveness
9.5	The role of corporate headquarters should be focused on financial control of its business units	Responsiveness
9.11	The corporate head office’s role should be kept to a bare minimum	Responsiveness
9.12	The identity of individual business units should be given more emphasis than the overall corporate identity	Responsiveness
9.13	In strategy, the business units should lead and the corporate head office should facilitate	Responsiveness
9.14	In successful corporations, almost all key activities and decision-making is done in the business units	Responsiveness
10.2	Business unit strategies should be tightly integrated into the overall corporate strategy	Synergy
10.5	The role of corporate headquarters should be to determine the strategic direction of its business units	Synergy
10.11	The corporate head office should set the general strategic direction for each business unit to follow	Synergy
10.12	The overall corporate identity should be given more emphasis than the identity of individual business units	Synergy
10.13	The corporate strategy should be leading and business units should follow very closely	Synergy
10.15	Business units should have only limited autonomy to deviate from corporate strategic plans	Synergy
11.1	Partnerships between firms are never stable for very long	Competition
11.11	Firms should work as independently as possible, only using temporary alliances if necessary	Competition
11.13	Firms should only consider alliances if they lack the ability to accomplish things independently	Competition
11.14	Alliances are for the weak; strong firms set their goals and achieve them independently	Competition
11.15	In most so-called partnerships, both firms are largely focused on their own interests	Competition
11.16	Firms should never accept being dependent on an alliance partner for their long-term success	Competition
12.1	Cooperation between firms is much more healthy than competition	Cooperation
12.11	Firms should seek strong partner organisations, with which to build long-term alliances	Cooperation
12.12	Firms should build long-term partnerships to reach strategic goals that are impossible to achieve independently	Cooperation
12.13	Partnerships between firms are a great way to combine competencies and achieve innovations	Cooperation
12.15	Alliances are a great way to combine resources and attack a mutual rival	Cooperation
12.16	There are many examples of mutually beneficial long-term partnerships between firms	Cooperation
12.17	It is strategically ok for two alliance partners to be mutually-dependent for their long-term success.	Cooperation
13.1	Adapting to market changes is wiser than trying to shape the market yourself	Compliance
13.9	Firms should let others be the pioneers and only embrace business innovations once they seem likely to become successful	Compliance
13.13	Successful firms follow trends; they don’t try to create them	Compliance
13.14	Firms following industry trends have a higher survival rate than radical innovators	Compliance
13.16	It is a better strategy to give customers what they currently want, than to try to create a new need	Compliance
13.17	Successful strategists understand “the industry rules” and play by the rules; adapting their firm to what is possible	Compliance
14.1	Above-average profitability is attained by firms that don’t adapt to the market, but actively shape the market	Choice
14.7	Constantly striving to revolutionize the industry will lead to above-average profitability	Choice
14.9	Firms should strive to be the initiators of radical innovations in their industry	Choice
14.11	Innovative first-movers are generally more profitable than firms that are second-movers	Choice
14.13	Successful firms don’t follow the trends; they create them	Choice
14.14	Successful firms avoid copying the ideas of other firms; they prefer to experiment and innovate themselves	Choice
15.1	Top-down strategy making works best	Control
15.5	Strategy is the responsibility of top management	Control
15.7	Top managers should tell their subordinate managers which strategic actions need to be taken	Control
15.9	Top management should come up with strategies and to get everyone to move in that direction	Control
15.13	In strategy making, top management should be in the lead, with some support from lower levels	Control
15.15	In successful firms, strategy is not made democratically; it is made and then sold by top management	Control
16.1	Bottom-up involvement in strategy formulation and implementation works best	Chaos
16.6	Top management should create the conditions for strategic initiatives to emerge from lower levels in the organization	Chaos
16.7	Top managers should encourage middle managers to participate in setting the strategic direction of the firm	Chaos
16.9	Good leaders make themselves redundant, building organizations that can be successful even after the leader is gone	Chaos
16.13	In strategy making, top management should facilitate wide-spread involvement throughout the organization	Chaos
16.14	In successful firms, top managers know that the best strategies will emerge out of discussions throughout the organization	Chaos
16.15	In successful firms, strategy is not made autocratically by top management, but through more democratic participation	Chaos
17.1	International firms should strive to sell globally standardized products	Globalization
17.4	International firms should focus on global standardization, to reap economies of scale	Globalization
17.12	International firms should strive towards a uniform corporate culture all around the world	Globalization
17.13	The most successful international firms use the same standardized approach everywhere around the world	Globalization
17.14	International firms should only adapt their products and processes if the foreign market conditions force them to	Globalization
17.15	First rule of international success: “Standardize, unless foreign market circumstances force you to localize”	Globalization
18.1	International firms should strive to sell products adapted to local needs and conditions	Localization
18.4	International firms should focus on local adaptation to a country’s specific demands	Localization
18.14	Successful international firms blend into foreign markets and act almost like local companies	Localization
18.15	First rule of international success: “Localize, unless global scale advantages force you to standardize.”	Localization
18.16	The most successful international firms are masters at tailoring their products and processes to meet local conditions	Localization
18.17	Even if a globally standardized product sells well, tailoring it to local needs could make it sell better	Localization
19.1	The ultimate objective of a firm should be to earn a profit for its shareholders	Profitability
19.8	Firms exist to make money, not to create jobs	Profitability
19.9	It is not the responsibility of firms to consider the social impact they have on the local community	Profitability
19.11	It is not the responsibility of firms to treat their employees well, although it can make good business sense	Profitability
19.12	Firms should avoid taking on social responsibilities such as creating jobs and cleaning up the environment	Profitability
20.1	To be good corporate citizens, firms should look beyond profitability and make a strong contribution to society’s welfare	Responsibility
20.7	Firms have social responsibilities beyond those in the law	Responsibility
20.8	Firms that make a lot of money, but are bad employers, should be despised	Responsibility
20.9	Business strategies should be judged by the social impact they have on the local community	Responsibility
20.11	It is the responsibility of firms to treat their employees well, even when it lowers profitability	Responsibility
20.12	Firms have social responsibilities, such as creating jobs and keeping the environment clean	Responsibility

Appendix 2. Internal consistency test for measurement scales (Cronbach’s alpha).

Scale	Cronbach’s alpha	Negative correlation
Logic	0.63	−0.05
Creativity	0.59
Deliberate	0.65	−0.38
Emergence	0.59
Evolution	0.72	−0.14
Revolution	0.7
Market	0.59	−0.20
Resources	0.63
Competition	0.68	−0.41*
Cooperation	0.75
Choice	0.71	−0.25*
Compliance	0.54
Control	0.75	−0.44*
Chaos	0.78
Profitability	0.72	−0.29*
Responsibility	0.71

*Significant at the P < .1 level.

Baird, A. J. (2000). Port privatisation: Objectives, extent, process, and the UK experience. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2(3), 177–194. doi: 10.1057/ijme.2000.16

 Google Scholar

Brooks, M. R. (2004). The governance structure of ports. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 168–183. doi: 10.2202/1446-9022.1049

 Google Scholar

Brooks, M. R., & Cullinane, K. (Eds.). (2006). Devolution, port governance and port performance (Vol. 17). London: Elsevier.

 Google Scholar

Chen, S. L. (2009). Port administrative structure change worldwide: Its implication for restructuring port authorities in Taiwan. Transport Reviews, 29(2), 163–181. doi: 10.1080/01441640802260248

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Langen, P. W., & Heij, C. (2014). Corporatisation and performance: A literature review and an analysis of the performance effects of the corporatisation of port of Rotterdam authority. Transport Reviews 34(3), 1–19. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2014.905650

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Notteboom, T., De Langen, P., & Jacobs, W. (2013). Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: Interactions between institutions, port governance reforms and port authority routines. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.05.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vieira, G. B. B., Kliemann Neto, F. J., & Amaral, F. G. (2014). Governance, governance models and port performance: A systematic review. Transport Reviews, 34(5), 645–662. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2014.946458

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, J. J., Ng, A. K., & Olivier, D. (2004). Port governance in China: A review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices. Transport Policy, 11(3), 237–250. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2003.11.003

 Google Scholar

Goss, R. O. (1990). Economic policies and seaports: Strategies for PAs. Maritime Policy and Management, 17(4), 273–287. doi: 10.1080/03088839000000033

 Google Scholar

Notteboom, T. (2006). Concession agreements as port governance tools. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 437–455. doi: 10.1016/S0739-8859(06)17019-5

 Google Scholar

de Langen, P. W., Van Den Berg, R., & Willeumier, A. (2012). A new approach to granting terminal concessions: The case of the Rotterdam World Gateway terminal. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(1), 79–90. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2011.642311

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Langen, P. W. (2004). The performance of seaport clusters (PhD dissertation). ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

 Google Scholar

de Langen, P. W., & Pallis, A. A. (2007). Entry barriers in seaports. Maritime Policy & Management, 34(5), 427–440. doi: 10.1080/03088830701585134

 Google Scholar

Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247–270. doi: 10.1080/03088831003700645

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coeck, C., Notteboom, T., Verbeke, A., & Winkelmans, W. (1996). A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning. In Smitz, & Thues (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th harbour Congress (pp. 29–41). The Royal Flemish Society of Engineers, Antwerp, June 17–21.

 Google Scholar

Dooms, M., van der Lugt, L., & de Langen, P. W. (2013). International strategies of port authorities: The case of the port of Rotterdam authority. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.004

 Google Scholar

van der Lugt, L., Dooms, M., & Parola, F. (2013). Strategy making by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.005

 Google Scholar

Hollen, R.M.A., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2013). Business model innovation of the Port of Rotterdam Authority (2000–2012). In B. Kuipers & R. Zuidwijk (Eds.), Smart port perspectives: Essays in Honour of Hans Smits (pp. 29–47). Rotterdam: SmartPort. ISBN: 978-90-819767-1-8.

 Google Scholar

Baltazar, R., & Brooks, M. R. (2007). Port governance, devolution, and the matching framework: A configuration theory approach. In M. R. Brooks, & K. Cullinane (Eds.), Devolution, port governance and port performance (pp. 379–403). London: Elsevier.

 Google Scholar

Child, J., Rodrigues, S. B., & Tse, K. K. T. (2012). The dynamics of influence in corporate Co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1246–1273. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01057.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2010). Shifting proximities: The maritime ports sector in an era of global supply chains. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1103–1115. doi: 10.1080/00343400903365110

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van der Lugt, L. M., Rodrigues, S. B., & Van den Berg, R. (2014). Co-evolution of the strategic reorientation of port actors: Insights from the port of Rotterdam and the port of Barcelona. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 197–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.09.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dooms, M., & Verbeke, A. (2007). Stakeholder management in ports: A conceptual framework integrating insights from research in strategy, corporate social responsibility and port management. IAME 2007 annual conference 2007, Athens.

 Google Scholar

Denktas-Sakar, G., & Karatas-Cetin, C. (2012). Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: A framework on resource dependence theory. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(3), 301–319. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.01.002

 Google Scholar

Chlomoudis, C.I., & Pallis, A.A. (2004). Port governance and the smart port authority: Key issues for the reinforcement of quality services in European ports. Proceedings of the 10th world conference on transport research, (CD-Rom), Istanbul, June 2004.

 Google Scholar

de Langen, P. W. (2008). Ensuring Hinterland Access: The Role of PAs, Discussion Paper of OECD International Transport Forum, Paris, France, October.

 Google Scholar

Monios, J. (2015). Identifying governance relationships between intermodal terminals and logistics platforms. Transport Reviews, 35(6), 767–791. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1053103

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313. doi: 10.1080/03088830500139885

 Google Scholar

Notteboom, T., & Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: How will PAs face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, 28(1), 71–89. doi: 10.1080/03088830119197

 Google Scholar

Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 241–255. doi: 10.1080/03088830210132623

 Google Scholar

Rodrigue, J.-P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A., & Gouvernal, E. (2010). Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 519–529. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meyer, R. (2007). Mapping the mind of the strategist, a quantitative methodology for measuring the strategic beliefs of executives, ERIM PhD Series Research in Management 106, ISBN: 90-5892-141-3. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.

 Google Scholar