گونه‌شناسی نظریه‌های زمینه‌ساز استراتژی باز

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت بازرگانی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران

2 دانشیار مدیریت بازرگانی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران

3 دانشیار مدیریت صنعتی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی تهران

چکیده

یکی از این اصول باز بودن در سازمان‌ها، حوزه استراتژیک از طریق شفافیت و مشارکت در فرآیندهای استراتژی است که استراتژی باز نامیده می‌شود. هدف این پژوهش، گونه‌شناسی و تحلیل محتوای نظریه‌های زمینه‌ساز استراتژی باز است که براساس تحلیل محتوای کیفی و با استفاده از روش قیاسی انجام شده است. با بررسی در پایگاه اسکوپوس و بهره‌گیری از روش نمونه‌گیری گلوله برفی و نظری، در نهایت 26 مقاله در بازه زمانی 1990 تا 2020 با محوریت استراتژی باز انتخاب و به روش کیفی تحلیل شدند. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد به‌طور کلی نظریه‌های مختلفی به صورت آشکار و یا ضمنی در حوزه استراتژی باز تاثیرگذار هستند. از تلاقی 8 رویکرد نظری شناسایی شده و 2 بعد زمینه معرفی شده، 16 گونه از نظریه‌های زمینه‌ساز استراتژی باز به دست آمد. استراتژی باز با توجه به مبنای نظری خود، می‌تواند شیوه‌های استراتژی‌سازی باز، پدیده‌ ارتباطاتی، فرآیندهای معنابخشی باز، اشکال جدید مشارکت ذی‌نفعان، انتظارات نهادینه شده، ترتیب جدید جریان اطلاعات و دانش، دسترسی به منابع باز و رقابت تعاملی در قالب ذی‌نفعان داخلی و یا ذی‌نفعان خارجی معرفی شود. در این میان رویکردهای شیوه عمل، رویکردهای مرتبط با ذی‌نفعان، رویکردهای نهادی و رویکردهای مبتنی بر دانش / اطلاعات رویکردهای مهم‌تر و قابل‌توجه‌تری هستند. باید اشاره کرد که ماهیت پویا و تأثیرگذار استراتژی باز و راه‌های مختلف نگاه به این حوزه، نشان می‌دهد محققین باید تلاش بیشتری برای درک بهتر این پدیده‌ جدید هیجان‌انگیز داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Typology of open strategy underlying theories

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amirhossein Tayebi Abolhasani 1
  • vahid khashei varnamkhasti 2
  • mahdi haghighi kafash 2
  • Mahdi Elyasi 3
1 PhD. Student of Business Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University of Tehran
2 Associate professor of Business Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University of Tehran
3 Associate professor of Industrial Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

 Aim and Introduction: Today, the concept of openness has spread in organizations and organizations have shown a special interest in open approaches. One of these open principles in organizations in the strategic field known through transparency and participation in strategy processes, which is called open strategy. This emerging phenomenon mentioned in various theoretical perspectives that need to be further understood. The purpose of this study is typology and content analysis of open strategy underlying theories, which based on qualitative content analysis using the deductive method.

Methodology: The present study is fundamental based on purpose, based on the nature of data, qualitative and based on data collection methods. In addition, the method of doing it is descriptive analysis and the method of data analysis is using qualitative content analysis. The present study based on qualitative content analysis with a structuring approach and using a deductive method. To find the articles, various methods such as searching the Scopus database and strategy experts used using snowball sampling techniques and theory. Reputable English scientific articles were examined with the Scopus index and the search in this database was done with the focus on the keyword "Open Strategy" in the period 1990 to 2020. The articles obtained according to the purpose of the research and based on internal criteria (in terms of the articles being more comprehensive, articles published in reputable journals, highly cited articles and main authors, analytical articles in this field and influential articles introduced by other researches and It was also evaluated with the help of the research focal group (experts) and finally based on the mentioned criteria and after the final screening, 26 important English articles with high quality and in line with the research objectives were selected for data extraction.
Findings: The results show that different theories and perspectives have directly and indirectly emphasized the openness of the strategy. In other words, in general, different theories are explicitly or implicitly influential in the field of open strategy. In total, 32 types of theories are effective in the field of open strategy, which were divided by the authors into 8 different theoretical approaches.The 8 theoretical approaches are: practical approaches, communication-based approaches, meaning-related approaches, stakeholder-related approaches, institutional approaches, knowledge/information-based approaches, resource-based approaches, and industrial organization-related approaches. From the intersection of 8 identified theoretical approaches and 2 introduced contextual dimensions, 16 types of open strategy contextual theories were obtained.
 These results show that open strategy, according to its theoretical basis, can be used as open strategy building methods, communication phenomenon, open meaning-making processes, new forms of stakeholder participation, institutionalized expectations, new order of information and knowledge flow, open source access and interactive competition. Introduce in the form of internal stakeholders or external stakeholders.
Discussion and Conclusion: The task of open strategy in the simplest sense is to increase transparency and participation in strategic issues (internal and external stakeholders) that need to be further understood. In this article, an attempt made to identify the underlying strategies of open strategy and to provide a typology of this emerging literature using the method of qualitative content analysis. The main definition of open strategy according to the literature in this field based on the basic principles of transparency and inclusiveness of participation, while it said that the activity and practice of openness are in dynamic, non-uniform and heterogeneous sets. In other words, in a relatively comprehensive definition, it can be stated, "open strategy is a dynamic set of activities that allows for strategic transparency and / or inclusion of internal and / or external stakeholders with the help of information technology tools." In total, 32 theories are influential in the field of open strategy, some of which have been direct and more explicit and some of which have been implicit. The diversity and breadth mentioned around open strategy is inevitable. One way to recognize the diversity of these factors and issues is to classify them based on certain criteria. Therefore, for this purpose, in the present study, a two-dimensional matrix introduced and the typology of theories was structured based on two dimensions of theoretical approach and context. From the first dimension, for the typology of theories, there were different theoretical approaches to open strategy. For this purpose, the underlying theories of open strategy were divided into 8 relatively different theoretical approaches. Also, in terms of context, two modes of focusing on the internal environment of the company (equivalent to the scope of the company's internal stakeholders) and focusing on the external environment of the company (equivalent to the scope of the external stakeholders of the company) were introduced. Then, from the intersection of 8 theoretical approaches and 2 introduced contextual dimensions, 16 types of open strategy grounding theories were obtained. These types show that open strategy can be studied and developed as 8 different concepts based on the internal environment of the company (internal stakeholders) or the external environment of the company (external stakeholders). These results also show that in general, open strategy, according to its theoretical basis, can be used as open strategy methods, communication phenomenon, open meaning-making processes, new forms of stakeholder participation, institutionalized expectations, new order of information and knowledge flow, access to open resources. In addition, introduce interactive competition in the form of internal stakeholders or external stakeholders. Given that various theories refer to open strategy in some way, among them, practice approaches, knowledge-based approach theories, and resource-based approaches have provided useful starting points. It can also be said that among these, practice approaches, stakeholder approaches, institutional approaches and knowledge / information based approaches are more important and significant approaches that researchers can pay more attention to in their future research.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Theory
  • strategy
  • open strategy
  • typology

مراجع

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Abdullah, H. (2009). Fundamental and ethics theories of corporate governance, Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, 4, 88-96
  3. Adobor, H. (2020). Open strategy: role of organizational democracy, Journal of Strategy and Management, 13)2(, 310-331.
  4. Adobor, H. (2019). Opening up strategy formulation: Benefits, risks, and some suggestions. Business Horizons, 62(3), 383–393.
  5. Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M., (2018), Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1704– 1727
  6. Almeida, F. (2021). Open-Innovation practices: diversity in Portuguese SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(3), 1-19
  7. Ambarish, R., John, K., & Williams, J. (1987). Efficient signaling with dividends and investments. The Journal of Finance, 42, 321–343.
  8. Amrollahi, A., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2014). Using crowdsourcing tools for implementing open strategy: A case study in education. 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2014.
  9. Andersén, J., & Ljungkvist, T., (2021), Resource orchestration for team-based innovation: a case study of the interplay between teams, customers, and top management. R&D Management, 51, 147-160.
  10. Analoui, F., & Karami, A. (2002). CEOs and development of the meaningful mission statement. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2(3), 13-20
  11. Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2017). The dynamics of open strategy: from adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 310-321.
  12. Armbrüster, T., & Gebert, D. (2002). Uncharted territories of organizational research: The case of Karl Popper’s open society and its enemies. Organization Studies, 23(2), 169–188.
  13. Asiaei, K., Rezaee, Z., Bontis, N., Barani, O., & Sapiei, N.S. (2021). Knowledge assets, capabilities and performance measurement systems: a resource orchestration theory approach, Journal of Knowledge Management
  14. Aten, K., & Thomas, G.F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180.
  15. Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 322–336.
  16. Barge-Gil, A. (2013). Open strategies and innovation performance. industry and innovation, 20(7), 585–610
  17. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
  18. Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2017). Paradox at an inter-firm level: a coopetition lensناقص است
  19. Birkinshaw, J., (2017). Reflections on open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 423-426.
  20. Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.
  21. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1995). The right game: Use game theory to shape strategy 76, Harvard Business Review Chicago. ناقص است
  22. Braun, D., & Guston, D.H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302-308.
  23. Broumand, S. (2019). Investigating the role of game theory in the evolution of competition and industrial policies in industrial economics. JPBUD, 24(1), 135-152. (In Persian)
  24. Broumand, S. (1997). Change at the turn of the 21st century, a new perspective on the foundations of industrial economics.Knowledge and Development, 6, 39-62.( In Persian)
  25. Brummans, B. H. J. M., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). Approaches in research on the communicative constitution of organizations. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational communication, 173–194. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. London: Routledge.
  27. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  28. Burchard, M.S., & Swerdzewski, P., (2009). Learning effectiveness of a strategic learning course, Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(1), 14-34.
  29. Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2(3), 170-190
  30. Carfì, D., & Musolino, F. (2012). Game theory model for European government bonds market stabilization: a saving-State proposal. ناقص است
  31. Cenamor, J., & Frishammar, J., (2021), Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products, Research Policy, 50(1), 1-15.
  32. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, 4(2), 125–137.
  33. Chalmers, A.F. (1982), What is this thing called science?: an assessment of the nature and stotus of scienee and its methods, Hackett Publishing Company.
  34. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.
  35. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
  36. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.
  37. Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, 380-394.
  38. Das, T. K., & Teng, B.S., (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of management review, 23(3), 491-512.
  39. Daily, C., Dalton, D., & Cannella, J. (2003). Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue & Data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371-382.
  40. David, P. A. (1998). Common agency contracting and the emergence of “Open science” institutions. American Economic Review, 88(2), 15–21.
  41. De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2019). Interorganizational strategizing. cambridge handbook of open strategy. 106-120.
  42. Dehghan Ashkezari, M., Miremadi, T., Ghazinoori, S., & RamezanpourNargesi, G. (2019). The Typology of Theories of Innovation Systems Internationalization. Management Researches, 11(42), 33-60. (In Persian)
  43. Dehghani, M. (2015). Study of the effect of open business model on strategic innovation and competitive advantage in knowledge-based companies in Bushehr province. M.Sc. Thesis, Business Management, Persian Gulf University. (In Persian)
  44. Deken, F., Berends, H., Gemser, G., & Lauche, K. (2018). Strategizing and the initiation of interorganizational collaboration through prospective Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1920–1950.
  45. Denyer, D., Parry, E., & Flowers, P. (2011). Social, Open and Participative? Exploring personal experiences and organisational effects of enterprise2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 375–396.
  46. Devlin, G., Bleackley, M. (1988). Strategic alliances-guidelines for success. Long range planning, 21(5), 18-23.
  47. L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3). 343–370.
  48. Dobusch, L., & Kapeller, J. (2018). Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons. Long Range Planning, 51(4), 561–579.
  49. Dobusch, L., Kremser, W., Seidl. D., & Werle, F. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Management forschung, 27(1), 5–25.
  50. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362
  51. Ethiraj, SK., Gambardella, A., & Helfat, C.E., (2018). Theory in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1529.
  52. Ettlinger N. (2017). Open innovation and its discontents, Geoforum, 80, 61–71
  53. Faraj, S., von Krogh, G., Monteiro, E., & Lakhani, K. R. (2016). Special section introduction– Online community as space for knowledge flows. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 668–684.
  54. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Gawer, A., (2020). Digital platforms’ boundaries: the interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces. Long Range Plann.
  56. Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making strategy making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 337–354.
  57. Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of management review, 26(3), 431-445.
  58. Goergen, M., Martynova, M., & Renneboog, L. (2005). Corporate Governance Convergence: Evidence from Takeover Regulation Reforms, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(2), 243-268.
  59. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances, in R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving acting, and knowing, 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  60. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
  61. Goldenstein, J., & Walgenbach, P. (2019). An institutional perspective on open strategy: strategy in world society. Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy, 289-304.
  62. Grant, D., Oswick, C., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. L., & Phillips, N. (Eds.). (2004). The sage handbook of organizational discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  63. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
  64. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  65. Grimaldi, M., Greco, M., & Cricelli, L., (2021). A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation, Journal of Business Research, 123, 156-164.
  66. Guerras-Martín, L.A., Madhok, A., & Montoro-Sánchez, A. (2014). The evolution of strategic management research: Recent trends and current directions, Business Research Quarterly, 17(2), 69-76.
  67. Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G. (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44(5/6), 297–316.
  68. Hafkesbrink, J., & Schroll, M. (2010). Organizational competences for open innovation in small and medium sized enterprises of the digital economy, innowise GmbH, Bürgerstr. 15, 47057 Duisburg, Germany.
  69. Hajipour, B., Tayebi Abolhasani, A., & Azizian Kalkhoran, Z. (2016). Content analysis of articles in the field of strategic management (Case Study: Journal of Strategic Management Studies). , Strategic management research, 22(62), 13-47. (In Persian)
  70. Hajipour, B., & Naji, M. (2011). Typology of strategy formation in economic public organizations of Iran. Strategic Management Thought, 5(1), 99-124. (In Persian)
  71. Hamidizadeh, M., Goldasteh, A., & Soleimanzadeh, E. (2021). Explain the pattern of development of the teacher-student approach in sharing tacit knowledge. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 12(46), 87-113. (In Persian)
  72. Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2006). Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1–2), 96–112.
  73. Hautz, J. (2019). A social network perspective on open strategy. Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy, 272-288.
  74. Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 298-309.
  75. Hautz, J. (2017). Opening up the strategy process–a network perspective. Management Decision, 55(9), 1956-1983.
  76. Heger, T., & Boman, M. (2015). Networked foresight – The case of EIT ICT Labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 147–164.
  77. Heracleous, L., Gößwein, J., & Beaudette, P. (2018). Open strategy making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A dialogic perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 5–35.
  78. Heidari, A., & Valipour, A. (2017). Strategic Management Research in Iran: An Overview of Published Works in Domestic Scientific Journals during 2002 to 2015. Journal of Business Management, 9(1), 83-102. (In Persian)
  79. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What is the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.
  80. Hoseinzadeh Shahri, M., Khodabandelou, R., & Moshkdanian, F. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of open strategy: a new concept in strategic management. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 363-377.
  81. Huijboom, N., & Van Den Broek, T. (2011). Open data: An international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice, 12(1), 4-16.
  82. Hutter, K., Nketia, B. A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with participation – Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 355–370.
  83. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.
  84. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as Practice: an activity-based approach. Sage Publications.
  85. Jensen, M. (1989). Eclipse of the public corporation. Available in: https://hbr.org/1989/09/ eclipse-of-thepublic- Corporation
  86. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs & ownership Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
  87. Jourabchi, K. (2019). Method, theory and their relationship: The evolution of the concept of method and theory based on two quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(98), 1-28.(In Persian)
  88. Keshavarzian, A., Bashkoooh Ajirloo, M., Hashemi, A., & Zarei, Gh. (2019). The concept of strategy from long ago to open strategy. Fourth National Conference on Management, Accounting and Economics with emphasis on regional and global marketing, Tehran(In Persian)
  89. Lan, L., & Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking agency theory: the view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 294-314.
  90. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  91. Lavaei Adaryani, R., Kalantari, K., Asadi, A., & Alambeigi, A. (2019). Content analysis of business cooperatives theories emphasizing network functions. Journal of Business Management, 11(1), 3-24. (In Persian)
  92. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Lin, D.-Y., Huang, C.-C., & Ng, M. (2017). The coopetition game in international liner shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(4), 474-495.
  94. Lopes, J.M., Gomes, S., Oliveira, J., & Oliveira, M. (2021). The role of open innovation, and the performance of European union regions. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2).
  95. Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384.
  96. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  97. Lynch, R., (2011). Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Six edition
  98. Makadok, R., Burton, R., & Barney, J. (2018). A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1530–1545
  99. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.
  100. Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341–358.
  101. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative Content Analysis. In: A Companion to Qualitative Research. Edited by Uwe Flick, Ernest Von Kardorff and Ines Steinke. London: Sage.
  102. Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.
  103. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari, New York: Prentice Hall.
  104. Morton, J., Wilson, A., & Cooke, L. (2016). Open strategy initiatives: open, IT-enabled episodes of strategic practiceناقص است
  105. Neeley, T., & Leonardi, P. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media use: The paradox of non-work interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 922–946.
  106. Nketia, B.A. (2016). The influence of open strategizing on organizational members’ commitment to strategy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 473-483.
  107. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informatics, 1(2), 161-169.
  108. Ohlson, T., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2019). Practices of transparency in open strategy: beyond the dichotomy of voluntary and mandatory disclosure. Cambridge Handbook of open strategy, 136-150.
  109. Orlova, L.S. (2019). Open innovation theory: Definition, instruments, frameworks. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, 10(4), 396-408.
  110. Ozkan-Canbolat, E., Beraha, A., & Bas, (2016). Application of evolutionary game theory to strategic innovation, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 685-693.
  111. Özdaşli, K. (2015). Positioning in business administration education at universities established in 2006: A Content Analysis on Strategic Drivers and Curriculum, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2926-2933.
  112. Parsajam, M., Hamidizadeh, M., Hajipour, B., & Fadaeinezhad, M. (2019). The Functions of Risks in Firm's Growth High Tech Industries Strategies. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 10(37), 19-39. (In Persian)
  113. Paya, A., & Mansouri, A. (2019). Science and technology: differences, interactions, and implications. Philosophy of Science, 8(16), 131-158. (In Persian)
  114. Peng, T.J.A., Pike, S., Yang, J.C.H., & Roos, G., (2012). Is cooperation with competitors a good idea? An example in practice. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 532-560.
  115. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth ofthe firm. New York: Sharpe
  116. Pettigrew, K. E., & McKechnie, L. (2001). The use of theory in information science research, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62- 73
  117. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective: Stanford University Press.
  118. Pittz, T. G., & Adler, T. (2016). An exemplar of open strategy: Decision-making within multi-sector Management Decision, 54(7), 1595–1614.
  119. Popper, K. R. (1966). The open society and its enemies. Volumes II and I. London: Routledge.
  120. Porter, M.E., (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review 6, 609-620.
  121. Powell, T.C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C.G. (2011). Behavioral strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1369-1382.
  122. Rahmanseresht, H. (2004). Strategic management in the thought of theorists. Tehran, Allameh Tabatabai University Press.(In Persian)
  123. Sailer, A.-S., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2018). Open strategy: state of the art review and research agenda. ICIS 2017: Transforming Society with Digital Innovation.
  124. Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2011). Towards a model of dynamic capabilities in innovation-based competitive strategy: Insights from projectoriented service firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1251-1263.
  125. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
  126. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  127. Schmitt, R. (2010). Dealing with wicked issues: Open strategizing and the Camisea case. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 11–19.
  128. Schoder, D., Schlagwein, D., & Fischbach, K. (2019). Open resource-based view (ORBV): A theory of resource openness, International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Germany.
  129. Seidl, D., Krogh, G.V., & Whittington, R. (2019). Defining open strategy: dimensions, practices, impacts, and perspectives. Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy, 9–26.
  130. Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic metaproblems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 830–858.
  131. Shaykh al-Islami, S. (2013). Principles of change in organization (challenges and conflicts), Tehran: Iran Industrial Training and Research Center Publications. (In Persian)
  132. Sinatra, A., Singh, H., & Von Krogh, G. (Eds.). (2016). The management of corporate acquisitions: International perspectives. New York: Springer.
  133. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., & Gilbert, B.A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage breadth, depth, and life cycle effects, Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390-1412.
  134. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., & Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.
  135. Smith, T. R. (2011). Agency theory and its consequences: A study of the unintended effect of agency theory on risk and morality. Master thesis, Copenhagen Business School.
  136. Soltani, M., Shahbazi, M., Ahmadian, A., & Hamidizadeh, A. (2019). Analytical and systematic overview on the paradigms of co-opetition strategy as a paradox in the strategic management literature. Iranian journal of management sciences, 14(53), 100-120. (In Persian)
  137. Splitter, V., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2019). Practice-theoretical perspectives on open strategy: implications of a strong programme. Cambridge Handbook of open strategy, 221-240.
  138. Stacey, R. (1993). Strategic thinking and the management of change, London, Kogan Page
  139. Strauss, A. (1988). Negotiations – Varieties, contexts, processes and social orders (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  140. Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.
  141. Sunner, A., & Ates, A. (2019). Open strategy: a review and research agenda. In: BAM 2019 Conference Proceedings. British Academy of Management, GBR, London.
  142. Tabrizi, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of deductive and inductive approaches.Social Sciences 21(64), 138-105. (In Persian)
  143. Talari, M., & Azarbayejani, M. (2020). Designing and explaining open strategy model (Case Study: Iranian Banking Industry). Strategic Management Thought, 14(2), 743-778. (In Persian)
  144. Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2017). Open strategy: Literature review, re-analysis of cases and conceptualisation as a practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 163–184.
  145. Tavakoli, A., Schlagwein, D., & Schoder, D. (2015). Open Strategy: consolidated definition and processual conceptualization. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, USA.
  146. Tayebi Abolhasani, A., & Khashei Varnamkhasti, V. (2021). Analyze the evolution of strategy. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 11(2), 97-123. (In Persian)
  147. Tayebi Abolhasani, A., & Ebrahimi, M. (2019). Reflection the concept of Dynamic Capabilities. Journal of International Business Administration, 2(1), 103-148. (In Persian)
  148. Tayebi Abolhasani, A., & Rouhanirad, S. (2017). A review on strategy tools published in leading journals within the past 25 years. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 7(1), 55-77. (In Persian)
  149. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18, 509-34
  150. Teulier, R., & Rouleau, L. (2013). Middle managers’ sensemaking and interorganizational change initiation: Translation spaces and editing practices. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 308–337.
  151. Vega, D. C., & Keenan, R. J. (2014). Transaction cost theory of the firm and community forestry enterprises. Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 1-7.
  152. Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.
  153. Von Krogh, G., & Geilinger, N., (2019). Open innovation and open strategy: epistemic and design dimensions, Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy, 41–58
  154. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). The theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  155. Wagnerwick, C. (2016). Strategy metaphors: a creative look at strategic management education. Translated by Bahman Hajipour, Tehran: Imam Sadegh University Press. (In Persian)
  156. Wang, C.L., & Ahmed, P.K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.
  157. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  158. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
  159. Whittington, R. (2019). Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  160. Whittington, R., Yakis-Douglas, B., & Ahn, K. (2016). Cheap talk? Strategy presentations as a form of chief executive officer impression Strategic Management Journal, 37(12), 2413–2424.
  161. Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531-544
  162. Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.
  163. Whittington, R. (2001). What is Strategy and does it matter?, London: South- Western CENGAGE Learning
  164. Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organizational transition. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 411–422.
  165. Zajac, E.J., & Olsen, C.P. (1993). From transaction cost to transactional value analysis: Implications for the study of interorganizational strategies. Journal of management studies, 30(1), 131-145.
  166. Ziyae, B., & Kafaee, F. (2020). Designing comprehensive model of corporate governance with open innovation approach in the insurance Industry. Innovation Management in Defense Organizations, 3(3), 25-50. (In Persian)
  167. Zollo, M., & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization science, 13(3), 339-351.
فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی
دوره 13، شماره 51
مهر 1401
صفحه 193-225

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 11 آبان 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 17 دی 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 14 اسفند 1400

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار