استراتژیزدایی: بررسی تغییر پارادایم در مدیریت استراتژیک
محورهای موضوعی :نیما اسکندری نیا 1 , سمیه صائب نیا 2 , فاطمه دکامینی 3
1 - 2- دکترای تخصصی، مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران.
2 - دانشجوی دکتری، مدیریت دولتی، گرایش منابع انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اردبیل، ایران
3 - مدرس دانشگاه آزاد تهران و کرج
کلید واژه: استراتژیآفرینی استراتژیزدایی پارادایم مزیت رقابتی,
چکیده مقاله :
مدیریت استراتژیک و نظریههای مزیت رقابتی همیشه با تنوع رویکردی و پیچیدگی نظری همراه بودهاند. علیرغم تمامی این تنوعهای رویکردی و پیچیدگیهای نظری پیام کلیدی تمامی پارادایمهای گوناگون مزیت رقابتی یکسان بوده است که تبدیل به وجه مشترک تمامی پارادایمها شده است. پیام کلیدی یکسان و وجه مشترک تمامی پارادایمهای مزیت رقابتی این بوده است که سازمانها در غیاب استراتژی قادر به ایجاد مزیت رقابتی نیستند و سازمانی هم که فاقد مزیت رقابتی باشد قطعاً شکست میخورد. به بیان سادهتر پارادایمهای متداول مزیت رقابتی از جمله دیدگاه مبتنی بر منابع، رویکرد سازمان صنعتی، رویکرد هزینه مبادله، رویکرد کارآفرینی و رویکرد رفتاری با وجود تفاوتهای نظری از دو موضوعِ خلق استراتژی و ایجاد مزیت رقابتی جهت دستیابی به عملکرد ممتاز حمایت کردهاند. اما در طی سالهای اخیر پارادایمی نوین در حال ظهور است که از استراتژیزدایی پشتیبانی کرده است. هدف از انجام این پژوهش معرفی هستیشناسی، دانششناسی، ارزششناسی و روششناسی منحصر به فرد این پارادایم در مقایسه با پارادایمهای دیگر از طریق روش کیفی تحلیل محتوای مقالات منتشر شده میباشد. یافتههای پژوهش نشان میدهند که پارادایم نوظهور استراتژیزدایی به لحاظ هستیشناسی، دانششناسی، ارزششناسی و روششناسی دارای تضادهای آشکاری با تمامی پارادایمهای موجود است. بر اساس این پارادایم نوظهور نه تنها استراتژیآفرینی سیاستی اثربخش نیست بلکه سازمانها از طریق استراتژیزدایی و عدم توجه به مزیت رقابتی به موفقیت و عملکرد متعالی دست پیدا میکنند. یافته-های این پژوهش بینشی منحصر به فرد برای پژوهشگران حوزه استراتژی و همچنین مدیران ارشد سازمانها ایجاد میکند.
Strategic management and competitive advantage theories have always been associated with diversity of approaches and theoretical complexity. Despite all these variations in approach and theoretical complexities, the key message of all different paradigms is to gain competitive advantage, which has become the common facet of all paradigms. The same key message and the common aspect of all competitive advantage paradigms is that organizations are not able to create competitive advantage in the absence of strategy, and an organization that lacks competitive advantage will definitely fail. To put it more simply, the common paradigms of competitive advantage, including the resource-based perspective, the industrial organization approach, the transaction cost approach, the entrepreneurial approach, and the behavioral approach, despite the theoretical differences are supported that creating strategy and gaining competitive advantage will result superior performance. But in recent years, a new paradigm is emerging that supports de-strategization. The purpose of this research is to introduce the unique ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology of this paradigm in comparison with other paradigms through the qualitative method of content analysis of the published articles.The findings of the research show that the emerging paradigm of de-strategization has obvious contradictions with all the existing paradigms in terms of ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology. Based on this emerging paradigm, not only strategy-making is not an effective policy, but also organizations achieve success and superior performance through de-strategization.The findings of this research create a unique insight for researchers in the field of strategy as well as senior managers of organizations
Ascher, D., Silva, W., Polowczyk, J., & Damião da Silva, E. (2018). Neurostrategy: An advance through
the paradigm epistemological in strategic management?. Academy of Strategy Management Journal,
17(2), 1-20. URI:
https://bazawiedzy.ue.poznan.pl/info/article/UEP0bff468b556349c4b94195b2cbfd04bf/
2. Ateljević, J., Kulović, D., Đoković, F., & Bavčić, M. (2023). Business Strategy and Competitive
Advantage: A Reinterpretation of Michael Porter’s Work. Taylor & Francis.
3. Bidstrup, M., & Hansen, A. M. (2014). The paradox of strategic environmental
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 47, 29-35. doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.03.005
4. Cunha, M. P. E., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic
organization, 17(1), 95-106. doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536
5. Dmitrijeva, J., Schroeder, A., Bigdeli, A. Z., & Baines, T. (2022). Paradoxes in servitization: A
processual perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 101, 141-152.
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.12.007
6. Eskandarinia, N. (2021). Neo-Strategy Theory: Concepts, Assumptions and Applications. Strategic
Management Researches, 27(80), 41-58. DOR: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22285067.1400.27.80.2.1
(In Persian)
7. Eskandarinia, N. (2021). Recognizing competitive advantage theory: Narrative research of Lionel
Messi’s biography. An Approach to Business Management, 2(2), 82-100. doi.org/10.52547/jabm.2.2.82
(In Persian)
8. Eskandarinia, N. (2021). Strategy As Thoughts Multiplicity: The Innovative Participatory Learning
Metaphor-Drama Research. Journal of Advertising and Sales Management, 2(3), 30-47.
doi.org/10.52547/jabm.2.3.30 (In Persian)
9. Eskandarinia, N. (2022). Strategy As Pragmatic Habituation: An Innovative Pragmatic Deconstruction-
Unsimulacra Research. Journal of Advertising and Sales Management, 2(3), 1-23.
doi.org/10.52547/jabm.3.2.1 (In Persian)
10. Eskandarinia, N. (2023). The strategy creation de-strategization paradox: examining the basic duality
using Phronetic iterative qualitative method. Strategic Management Researches, 29(88). (In Persian)
11. Grandy, G., & Mills, A. J. (2004). Strategy as simulacra? A radical reflexive look at the discipline and
practice of strategy. Journal of management studies, 41(7), 1153-1170. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2004.00470.x
12. Herold, S., Heller, J., Rozemeijer, F., & Mahr, D. (2023). Dynamic capabilities for digital procurement
transformation: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 53(4), 424-447. doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-12-2021-0535
مطالعاتراهبردیدرکسبوکاردوره2،شماره2:36-13
35
13. Högberg, K., & Willermark, S. (2023). Strategic responses to digital disruption in incumbent firms–a
strategy-as-practice perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(2), 281-292.
doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2057373
14. Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-
use. Organization studies, 25(4), 529-560. doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040675
15. Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands:
How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic organization, 11(3), 245-
280. doi.org/10.1177/1476127013481016
16. Jarzabkowski, P., Seidl, D., & Balogun, J. (2022). From germination to propagation: Two decades of
Strategy-as-Practice research and potential future directions. human relations, 75(8), 1533-1559.
doi.org/10.1177/00187267221089473
17. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., & Scholes, K. (2020). Exploring strategy.
Pearson UK.
18. Jraisat, L., Jreissat, M., Upadhyay, A., Sajjad, F., & Balodi, K. C. (2022). Paradox of strategic
partnerships for sustainable value chains: Perspectives of not‐for‐profit actors. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 31(7), 3491-3508. doi.org/10.1002/bse.3101
19. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice and Software.
SAGE.
20. Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2010). The case for behavioral strategy. The McKinsey Quarterly.
21. MacKay, B., Chia, R., & Nair, A. K. (2021). Strategy-in-Practices: A process philosophical approach to
understanding strategy emergence and organizational outcomes. Human Relations, 74(9), 1337-1369.
doi.org/10.1177/0018726720929397
22. McGrath, R. G. (2023). Innovation preservation and cultivation: where to locate transformational
projects. Strategy & Leadership, 51(1), 10-17. doi.org/10.1108/sl-10-2022-0099
23. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously
creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty (Vol. 284). Harvard Business Press.
doi.org/10.1007/bf03396662
24. Miller, D. (1992). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own
downfall. Business Horizons, 35(1), 24-35. doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(92)90112-m
25. Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2021). Paradoxical resource trajectories: When strength leads to
weakness and weakness leads to strength. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1899-1914.
doi.org/10.1177/0149206320977901
26. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic management
journal, 6(3), 257-272. doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306
27. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. B. (2020). Strategy safari. Pearson UK.
doi.org/10.1108/ws.1999.07948bae.002
28. Mueller, F. (2018). Taking Goffman seriously: Developing strategy-as-practice. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 53, 16-30. doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.03.009
29. Nayak, B., Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Krishnamoorthy, B. (2023). Integrating the dialectic perspectives of
resource-based view and industrial organization theory for competitive advantage–a review and research
agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(3), 656-679. doi.org/10.1108/jbim-06-2021-
0306
30. Pina e Cunha, M., Giustiniano, L., Rego, A., & Clegg, S. (2017). Mission impossible? The paradoxes of
stretch goal setting. Management Learning, 48(2), 140-157. doi.org/10.1177/1350507616664289
31. Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard business review, 86(1),
78-93.
32. Porter, M. E., & Lee, T. H. (2015). Why strategy matters now. N Engl J Med, 372(18), 1681-1684.
doi.org/10.1056/nejmp1502419
33. Powell, T. C. (2002). The philosophy of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 873-880.
doi.org/10.1002/smj.254
34. Powell, T. C. (2003). Strategy without ontology. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 285-291.
doi.org/10.1002/smj.284
مطالعاتراهبردیدرکسبوکاردوره2،شماره2:36-13
36
35. Powell, T. C. (2011). Neurostrategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1484-1499.
doi.org/10.1002/smj.969
36. Powell, T. C. (2017). Strategy as diligence: Putting behavioral strategy into practice. California
Management Review, 59(3), 162-190. doi.org/10.1177/0008125617707975
37. Powell, T. C. (2018). Absence-neglect and the origins of great strategies. Strategy Science, 3(1), 306-
312. doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2017.0037
38. Powell, T. C. (2018). Romantics, Mercenaries, and Behavioral Rationality. In Behavioral Strategy in
Perspective (Vol. 39, pp. 151-165). Emerald Publishing Limited. doi.org/10.1108/s0742-
332220180000039011
39. Powell, T. C., & Arregle, J. L. (2007). Firm performance and the axis of errors. Journal of Management
Research, 7(2), 59-77.
40. Powell, T. C., & Puccinelli, N. M. (2012). The brain as substitute for strategic organization. Strategic
Organization, 10(3), 207-214. doi.org/10.1177/1476127012452823
41. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management
Journal, 32(13), 1369-1386. doi.org/10.1002/smj.968
42. Powell, T. C., Rahman, N., & Starbuck, W. H. (2010). European and North American origins of
competitive advantage. In The globalization of strategy research (pp. 313-351). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. doi.org/10.1108/s0742-3322(2010)0000027014
43. Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., & Federico, J. S. (2021). A (re) view of the philosophical foundations of
strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2), 151-190.
doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12244
44. Rouleau, L., & Cloutier, C. (2022). It’s strategy. But is it practice? Desperately seeking social practice in
strategy-as-practice research. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 722-733.
doi.org/10.1177/14761270221118334
45. Rumelt, R. P. (2022). Getting strategy wrong—and how to do it right instead. The McKinsey Quarterly.
46. Santos, L. L. D. S., Tureta, C., & Felix, B. (2020). A qualitative method proposal for the study of
strategy as practice. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 25 (2). doi.org/10.1590/1982-
7849rac2021190353.en
47. Slater, R., & Prichard, M. J. (1998). Jack Welch and the GE way (pp. 52-53). New York: McGraw-Hill.
doi.org/10.1016/s0007-6813(99)80026-3
48. Sulphey, M. M. (2020). How Icarus Paradox Doomed Kingfisher Airlines. Vision, 24(1), 118-124.
doi.org/10.1177/0972262919897646
49. Teoh, B. A., Teoh, P. C., Tan, H. C., & Ibrahim, A. (2023). What is next for sustainable competitive
advantages in pandemic outbreak context?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 72(4), 986-1000. doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-06-2021-0336
50. Tippmann, E., Monaghan, S., & Reuber, R. A. (2022). Navigating the paradox of global scaling. Global
Strategy Journal. doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1435
51. Vinardi, C. (2023). Business Strategy with Hoshin Kanri. Springer Nature. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
20963-5
52. Waldman, D. A., & Sparr, J. L. (2023). Rethinking diversity strategies: An application of paradox and
positive organization behavior theories. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(2), 174-192.
doi.org/10.5465/amp.2021.0183
