COMPETITIVE INERTIA, FUNCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND TEMPORARY COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: A MODAL PROPOSITION

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 208 - 234, 30.09.2020

Mehmet Kahya

Öz

Organizations have to adapt themselves to their environments in order to survive. They try to survive and gain competitive advantage in a competitive, turbulent and unstable market resulting from rapid technological advances. However, in today’s highly dynamic and hyper competitive environment, it is difficult to adapt to the environment and obtain sustainable competitive advantage by using firm-level resources. Therefore, managers try to gain a competitive advantage by determining the most suitable strategy that is suitable for them and successfully adapts to these technological and industrial changes. If organizations do not take measures to maintain their competitive advantage by falling into inertia and do not support competitive inertia with innovations and functional strategies, it is inevitable for the organization to weaken and fall behinds of its competitors. The purpose of this study is to reveal the importance of functional strategies in terms of sectoral organization model, resource-based approach and guerrilla logic to conceptually evaluate relationships between competitive inertia, functional strategies and temporary competitive advantage in organizations and to gain temporary competitive advantage in hyper competition environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competitive inertia, temporary competitive advantage, functional strategies.

REKABETÇİ ATALET, İŞLEVSEL STRATEJİLER VE GEÇİCİ REKABET AVANTAJI: KAVRAMSAL BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Örgütler, hayatta kalmak için çevreye uyum sağlamak zorundadır. Örgütler, hızlı teknolojik gelişmelerden kaynaklanan aşırı rekabetçi, çalkantılı ve dengesiz bir pazarda hayatta kalmaya ve rekabet avantajı elde etmeye çalışmaktadır. Fakat günümüzün oldukça dinamik ve aşırı rekabetçi çevresinde, firma düzeyinde kaynakları kullanarak çevreye uyum sağlamak ve sürdürülebilir rekabet avantajı elde etmek zordur. Bu nedenle yöneticiler, kendileri için uygun olan ve bu teknolojik ve endüstriyel değişikliklere başarılı bir şekilde uyum sağlayan en uygun stratejiyi belirleyerek rekabetçi bir avantaj elde etmeye çalışmaktadır. Eğer örgütler atalete düşerek elde ettikleri rekabet avantajını sürdürecek tedbirler almazlarsa ve rekabetçi ataleti, yeniliklerle ve işlevsel stratejilerle desteklemezlerse, örgütün zayıflaması ve rakipleri karşısında geri kalması kaçınılmazdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sektörel örgüt modeli, kaynak tabanlı yaklaşım ve gerilla mantığı çerçevesinde, örgütlerde rekabetçi atalet, işlevsel stratejiler ve geçici rekabet avantajı arasındaki ilişkileri kavramsal olarak değerlendirmek ve aşırı rekabet ortamlarında geçici rekabet avantajı elde etmede işlevsel stratejilerin önemini ortaya koymaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

rekabetçi atalet, işlevsel stratejiler, geçici rekabet avantajı

Kaynakça

• Amburgey, T.L. ve Miner, A.S. (1992). Strategic momentum: The effects of repetitive, positional and contextual momentum on merger activity. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 335-348.
• Andrews, K. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Irvin: Homewood.
• Ansoff, H.I. (1965). Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Ansoff, H.I. (1992). A profile in intellectual growth. (Ed. A.D. Bedeian) Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays içinde (s.s. 1-39), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Ansoff, H.I. (2007). Strategic management. (11. Baskı), New York: Palgrave McMillan
• Ansoff, H.I., Kipley, D., Lewis, A.O, Helm-Stevens, R. ve Ansoff, R. (2019). Implementing strategic management. (3. Baskı), Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Audia,P.G., Locke, E.A. ve Smith, K.G. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 837-853.
• Barca, M. (2009). Stratejik yönetim düşüncesinin gelişimi. Dosya, Ankara: Ankara Sanayi Odası.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Chen, M.J., Smith, K.G. ve Grimm, C.M. (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science, 38(3), 439-455.
• D’Aveni, R.A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press.
• D’Aveni, R.A. (1995). Coping with hypercompetition: Utilizing the new 7S’s framework. Academy of Management Executive, 9(3): 45-57.
• D’Aveni, R.A. (1999). Strategic supremacy through disruption and dominance. Sloan Management Review, Spring: 127-135.
• D’Aveni, R.A., Dagnino, G.B. ve Smith, K.G. (2010). The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1371-1385.
• Derfus, P.J., Maggitti, P.G., Grimm, C.M. ve Smith, K.G. (2008). The red queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 61-80.
• Dess, G.G. ve Davis, P.S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 467-488.
• Dutton, J.E. ve Duncan, R.B. (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 279-295.
• Eisenhardt, K. ve Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities. What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10), 1105-1121.
• Eren, E. (2010). Stratejik yönetim ve işletme politikası. (8. Baskı), İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın.
• Ferrier, W.J., Smith, K.G. ve Grim, C.M. (1999). The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 372-388.
• Ferrier, W.J. (2001). Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 858–877.
• Galbraith, C. ve Schendel, D. (1983). An empirical analysis of strategy types. Strategic Management Journal, 4(2), 153-173.
• Gresov, C., Heather, A.H. ve Terence, A.O. (1993). Organizational design, inertia, and the dynamics of competitive response. Organization Science, 4 (2), May, 181-220.
• Grimm, C.M., Lee, H. ve Smith, K.G. (2005). Strategy as action: Competitive dynamics and competitive advantage. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
• Hannan, M.T. ve Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
• Hannan, M.T. ve Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), April, 149-164.
• Hill, C.W.L. (1988). Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost: A contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 401-412.
• Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. ve Hoskisson, R.E. (2006). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. (7. Baskı), Boston: Cengage Learning.
• Hofer, C. ve Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical Concepts. New York: West.
• Huang, K.F., Dyerson, R., Wu, L.Y. ve Harindranath, G. (2015). From temporary compatitive advantage to sustainable competitive advantage. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 617-636.
• Hung, D.F. (2015). Sustained competitive advantage and organizational inertia: The cost perspective of knowledge management. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6, 769-789.
• Kelly, D. ve Amburgey, T.L. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 591-612.
• Koçel, T. (2005). İşletme yöneticiliği. (10. Baskı), İstanbul: Arıkan Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Leblebici, D.N. (2005). Küresel değişim baskısına karşı Türk bürokrasisindeki yapısal uyum çabalarının yapısal atalet kavramı açısından değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 1-14.
• Lengnick-Hall, C.A. ve Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (1988). Strategic human resources management: A review of the literature and a proposed typology. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 454-470.
• Lengnick-Hall, C.A. ve Wolff, J.A. (1999). Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1109-1132.
• Lynch, R. (2006). Corporate strategy. (4. Baskı), England: Prentice Hall.
• MacMillan, I.C. ve McCaffery, M.L. (1984). Strategy for financial services: Cashing in on competitive inertia. Journal of Business Strategy, 4 (3), Winter, 58-75.
• MacMillan, I.C. (1989). How long can you sustain a competitive advantage?. L. Fahey (Ed.), The Strategy Planning Management Reader içinde (s.s.23-26), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Miles, R. ve Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Miles, R. ve Snow, C. (1984). Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational Dynamics, 13(1), 36-52. Miller, D.ve Friesen, H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Miller, D., Friesen, P.H. ve Mintzberg, H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233-249.
• Miller, D. (1992). The generic strategy trap. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(1), 37-41.
• Miller, D. ve Chen, M.J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the U.S. airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly,39(1): 1-23.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and falling of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.
• Nelson, R.R. ve Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Newbert, S.L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and the suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121-146.
• O’Shannassy, T. (2008). Sustainable competitive advantage or temporary competitive advantage: Improving understanding of an important strategy construct. Journal of Strategy and Management, 1(2), 168-180.
• Parnel, J.A. (1997). New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance debate: A research note. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 175-181.
• Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
• Pi, S., Kuang, C. ve Hailin, L. (2012). Integrating managerial pattern and competitive advantages: The moderation of competitive inertia. International Business and Management, 5(1), 120-125.
• Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Technics for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
• Porter, M.E. (1985). The competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
• Porter, M.E. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harward Business Review, May-June, 1-21.
• Prahalad, C.K. ve Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harward Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
• Quinn, J. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Irwin, IL: Homewood.
• Rumelt, R. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), 167-185.
• Sargut, S. ve Özen, Ş. (2010). Örgüt kuramları. (2. Baskı), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Scotchmer, S. ve Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 131–146.
• Sirmon, D.G., Fraser, D., Tuggle, C.S., Haynes, K.T. ve Baradwaj, B.G. (2008). Exploring how directors’ prior extra- and intra-industry board experiences affect the formulation of functional strategies. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-6.
• Smith, K.G., Ferrier W.J. ve Grimm, C.M. (2001). King of the hill: Dethroning the industry leader. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 59-70.
• Tushman, M. ve Romenelli, E. (1985). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
• Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Uma, R.T.S. ve Panchanatham, N. (2011). An empirical study on functional strategies and infrastructure strategies adopted by banks. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(2), 1001-1011.
• Waterman, R., Peters, T.J. ve Phillips, J.R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14-26.
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
• Winter, S.G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.
• Wong, V. (1992). An empirical study of firms' co-ordination of functional and market entry timing strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 8(3), 239-257.
• Wright, P., Knoll, M., Caddie, B. ve Pryingle, C. (1990). Strategic profiles, market share and business performance. Industrial Management, 32, May-June, 23-28.
• Yamin, S., Gunasekaran, A. ve Mavondo, F.T. (1999). Relationship between generic strategies, competitive advantage and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Technovation, 19(8), 507-518.