Paradoks rentowności i konkurencyjności w zarządzaniu strategicznym rozwojem przedsiębiorstwa

• Autorzy: Katarzyna Bratnicka-Myśliwiec

Warianty tytułu

Profitability versus competitiveness in managing strategic firm growth

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Problematyka rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa jest niezbywalnym elementem badań w zakresie zarządzania strategicznego. W większości przypadków jest rozpatrywana sekwencja działań i zdarzeń w układzie etapów rozwoju. Jednakże dotychczas pomijano wpływ paradoksów strategicznych na procesy rozwojowe. W celu rozpoznania roli paradoksów strategicznych przeanalizowano, jak zespoły zarządzające angażują się w godzenie sprzeczności rentowność- konkurencyjność w czasie rozwoju przedsiębiorstw. W niniejszym studium teoretycznym położono nacisk na zjawiska występujące wewnątrz granic przedsiębiorstwa, a w szczególności poddano analizie związki rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa z zarządzaniem paradoksami strategicznymi. Takie ogólne zamierzenie badawcze odniesiono do przypadku sprzeczności rentowność-konkurencyjność. Zastosowane podejście łączy odrębne zazwyczaj dwa obszary badawcze, czyli rozwój przedsiębiorstwa oraz zarządzanie paradoksami, a zarazem identyfikuje rolę zespołu zarządzającego w napędzaniu rozwoju przedsiębiorstwa. W zakończeniu wskazano na kierunki przyszłych badań.(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Growth is inherently present in strategic management research - most studies sequence actions and events across stages of development over time. Yet, research has overlooked how strategic paradoxes shape growth processes. To unpack the role of strategic paradoxes I examine how top management teams, which is how they reconcile profitability - competitiveness contradiction in their attempts to develop firms. In this theoretical study I focus on firm growth research inside organizational boundaries by examining its relationship with managing strategic paradoxes. To do so, I draw on the case of profitability-competitiveness contradiction. This approach blends the typically distinct, but related literature on firm growth and managing paradoxes and suggests the role that top management plays in circumventing the momentum for firm growth. I discuss the implications of my approach as they relate to future research opportunities across the strategic management and firm growth literatures.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Rozwój przedsiębiorstwa; Zarządzanie; Rentowność; Konkurencyjność przedsiębiorstwa

EN

Enterprise development; Management; Profitability; Enterprise competitiveness

• Czasopismo: Organizacja i Kierowanie
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 57--70

Twórcy

autor

Katarzyna Bratnicka-Myśliwiec

• Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach

Bibliografia

• Achtenhagen L., Naldi L., Melin L., 'Business growth': Do practitioners and scholars really talk about the same thing?, "Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice" 2010, No. 34, pp. 289-316.
• Barney J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, "Journal of Management" 1991, No. 17, pp. 99-120.
• Barney J. B., Wright P. M., On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in getting competitive advantage, "Human Resource Management" 1998, No. 37, pp. 31-46.
• Bateson G., Steps to an ecology of the mind, Ballentine Books, New York 1972.
• Birkinshaw J. M., Gupta K., Clarifying the distinctive contributions of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies, "Academy of Management Perspectives" 2013, No. 27, pp. 287-298.
• Bratnicka K., Creativity and performance. Testing ambidextrous hypotheses in Polish SME's context, "Management Forum" 2016 (w druku).
• Brink M. V. D., Stobbe L., Doing gender in academic education: A paradox of visibility, "Gender, Work and Organization" 2009, No. 16 (4), pp. 451-470.
• Brynjolfsson E., Milgrom P., Complementarity in organizations, [in:] R. Gibbons, J. Roberts (eds.), The handbook of organizational economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2013, pp. 11-55.
• Buyl T., Boone C., Matthyssens P., Upper echelons research and managerial cognition, "Strategic Organization" 2011, No. 9 (3), pp. 240-246.
• Cameron K., Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness, "Management Science" 1986, No. 32, pp. 539-553.
• Csaszar F. A., An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation, "Organization Science 2013", No. 24, pp. 1083-1101.
• D'Aveni R. A., Hypercompetition: Managing in the dynamics of strategic maneuvering, Free Press, New York 1994.
• Das T. K., Kumar R., Interpartner sensemaking in strategic alliance: Managing cultural differences and internal tensions, "Management Decision" 2010, No. 48 (1), pp. 17-36.
• Ehrhart M. G., Schneider B., Macey W. H., Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice, Routledge, New York 2014.
• Epstein M. J., Buhovac A. R., Yuthas K., Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously, "Long Range Planning" 2015, No. 48, pp. 35-45.
• Farjoun M., Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality, "Academy of Management Review" 2010, No. 35, pp. 202-225.
• Farjoun M., Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes, [in:] H. Tsoukas, A. Langley (eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 2016 (w druku).
• Feldman M. S., Making process visible: Alternatives to boxes and arrows, [in:] H. Tsoukas, A. Langley (eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 2016 (w druku).
• Felin T., Foss N. J., Heimeriks K. H., Madsen T. L., Microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory, "The Academy of Management Annals" 2012, No. 9 (1), pp. 575-632.
• Finkelstein S., Hambrick D. C., Cannella A., Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management team, and boards, Oxford University Press, New York 2009.
• Ford J. D., Backoff, R. H., Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox, [in:] R. E. Quinn, K. S. Cameron (eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA 1988, pp. 81-122.
• Granqvist N., Gustafsson R., Temporal institutional work, "Academy of Management Journal" 2016, No. 59, pp. 1009-1035.
• Gundry L. K., Munoz-Fernandez A., Ofstein L. F., Ortega-Egea T., Innovating in organizations: A model of climate components facilitating the creation of new value, "Creativity and Innovation Management" 2016, No. 25, pp. 223-238.
• Haslett B. B., Communicating and organizing in context: The theory of structurational interaction, Routledge, New York, NY 2012.
• Huang K-F., Dyerson R., Wu L.-Y., Harindranath G. H., From temporary competitive advantage to sustainable competitive advantage, "British Journal of Management" 2015, No. 26, pp. 617-636.
• Hussenot A., Missonier S., Encompassing stability and novelty in organization studies: An events-based approach, "Organization Studies" 2016, No. 37, pp. 523-546.
• Im G., Rai A., IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational relationships, "Information Systems Research" 2014, No. 25 (1), pp. 72-92.
• Jarzabkowski P., Le K. J., We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor, "Organization Studies" 2016 (w druku).
• Jian G., Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change: A process model, "Management Communication Quarterly" 2007, No. 21 (1), pp. 5-28.
• Junni P., Sarala R., Taras V., Tarba, S., Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis, "Academy of Management Perspectives" 2013, No. 27, pp. 299-312.
• Knox H., O'Doherty D. P., Vurdubakis T., Westrup C., Something happened: Specters of organization/disorganization at the airport, "Human Relations" 2015, No. 68 (6), pp. 1001-1020.
• Lewis M. W., Smith W. K., Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope, "Journal of Applied Behavioral Science" 2014, No. 50, pp. 127-149.
• Malhorta N., Hinings C. R., Unpacking continuity and change as a process of organizational transformation, "Long Range Planning" 2015, No. 48, pp. 1-22.
• McKelvie A., Wiklund J., Advancing firm growth research: A focus on growth mode instead of growth rate, "Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice" 2010, No. 34, pp. 261-288.
• McPhee R. D., Poole M. S., Iverson J., Structuration theory, [in:] L. L. Putnam, D. K. Mumby (eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, 3 rd edition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 2014, pp. 75-100.
• Mumby D. K., Organizational communication: A critical approach, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 2013.
• Mumby D. K., Critical theory and postmodernism, [in:] L. L. Putnam, D. K. Mumby (eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, 3 rd edition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA 2014, pp. 101-126.
• Piao M., Zajac E. J., How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence, "Strategic Management Journal" 2016, No. 37, pp. 1431-1447.
• Ployhardt R. E., Strategic organizational behavior (STROBE). The missing voice in the strategic human capital conversation, "Academy of Management Perspectives" 2015, No. 29, pp. 342-356.
• Poole M. S., Van de Ven A. H., Using paradox to build management and organization theories, "Academy of Management Review" 1989, No. 14 (4), pp. 562-578.
• Porter M. E., What is a strategy?, "Harvard Business Review" 1996, pp. 61-78.
• Powell T. C., Lovallo D., Fox C. R., Behavioral strategy, "Strategic Management Journal" 2011, No. 32 (13), pp. 1369-1386.
• Putnam L., Fairhurst G. T., Banghart S., Contradictions, dialectics and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach, "The Academy of Management Annals" 2016, No. 10, pp. 65-171.
• Rauseo S., Bui H. T. M., A systematic review of decision making under uncertainty - An integrative framework approach, referat wygłoszony na corocznej konferencji British Academy of Management 2016, Newcastle 2016.
• Reinecke J., Ansari S., When time collide. Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and development, "Academy of Management Journal" 2015, No. 58, pp. 618-648.
• Salvato C., Rerup C., Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities, "Journal of Management" 2011, No. 37 (2), pp. 468-490.
• Schumpeter J. A., The theory of economic development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1934.
• Seo M. G., Putnam L. L., Bartunek J. M., Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change, [in:] M. S. Poole, A. H. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY 2004, pp. 73-107.
• Sheep M. L., Fairhurst G. T., Khazanchi S., Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off, "Organization Studies" 2016 (w druku).
• Sirén C., Kohtamäki M., Kuckertz A., Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance and the mediating role of strategic learning: escaping the exploitation trap, "Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal" 2012, No. 6, pp. 18-41.
• Sirmon D. G., Hitt M. A., Ireland R. D., Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box, "Academy of Management Review" 2007, No. 32, pp. 273-292.
• Slawinsky N., Bansal P., Short on time: Temporal tensions in business sustainability, "Organization Science" 2015, No. 26, pp. 531-549.
• Smith W. K., Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes, "Academy of Management Journal" 2014, No. 57 (6), pp. 1592-1623.
• Smith W. K., Lewis M. W., Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, "Academy of Management Review" 2011, No. 36 (2), pp. 381-403.
• Sonenshein S., Routines and creativity: from dualism to duality, "Organization Science" 2016, No. 27, pp. 739-758.
• Trethewey A., Ashcraft K. L., Special issue introduction, "Journal of Applied Communication Research" 2004, No. 32 (2), pp. 81-88.
• Zimmermann A., Raisch S., Birkinshaw J., How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent chapter definition, "Organization Science" 2015, No. 26, pp. 1119-1139.