The strategic ambidexterity framework of competitive advantage and legitimacy

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Ph.D. student in business strategy management, Faculty of Management University of Allameh Tabatabaí, Iran.

2 Associate Prof., Faculty of Management, Allameh Tabatabaí, University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Management Allameh Tabatabaí University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Business Administration Department, Allameh Tabataba'i University

Abstract

In recent years, having the organizational capability in simultaneous management of business and institutional goals has become more important. For instance, companies are increasingly expected to minimize the detrimental effects of their activities on the environment or to meet the expectations of social institutions, concurrent with improving their growth and profitability. This issue is especially significant in developing countries due to the underdevelopment of institutional structures as well as severe turmoil in the political, economic and social environment. Considering different and heterogeneous nature of the competitive and social goals in companies, the purpose of this study is to draw a model for the successful and simultaneous management of competitive goals along with gaining social legitimacy. Accordingly, by using case-study method we chose Golrang Industrial Group (GIG) as one of the successful Iranian holdings in managing the competitive and social environment, then required data were collected by examining the related organizational documents and conducting in-depth interviews. we afterward explained the effective components on the ambidextrous pattern of competitive advantage and social legitimacy by content analysis method.
The results showed that the concurrence of competitive goals and social legitimacy in a way that leads to strengthening each other, requires implementation of three key practices: 1. Creating new competitive and institutional rules (Changing the playing field), 2. Protecting the environment and gaining institutional support (Buffering strategy), and 3. Ensuring the goals operationalizing and securing the results (institutional leadership strategy).

Keywords

References

  1. Ahuja, G. Capron, L. Lenox, M. & Yao, D. (2018). Strategy and the Institutional Envelope. Strategy Science, 3(2), 2-10.
  2. Akbari, M. Ebrahimpur, M. Hoshmand chaikhani, M. (2016). The effect of institutional factors on the sustainable performance of firms. Business management perspective, 15(28), 81-100. (in persian).
  3. Aoki, M. Greif, A. & Milgrom, P. (2001). Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. MIT press, Cambridge.
  4. Archibald, M. E. (2016). Between Isomorphism and Market Partitioning: How Organizational Competencies and Resources Foster Cultural and Socio-political Legitimacy and Promote Organizational Survival in Legitimacy Processes in Organizations. Emerald. 211-171.
  5. Arslan, M., Abidin, S., Alqatan, A. & Roudaki, J. (2019). Corporate governance in extreme institutional environment: evidence from emerging economy. Corp Ownersh Control, 17, 211-235.
  6. Arslan, M. Alqatan, A. (2020) . Role of institutions in shaping corporate governance system: evidence from emerging economy. Elsevier Ltd. 6(3), 1-17.
  7. Berrone, P. Gelabert, L. & Fosfuri, A. (2007). Can Institutional Forces Create Competitive Advantage? Empirical Examination of Environmental Innovation. Pearson, 21 – 08034 Barcelona, Spain: IESE Business School-University of Navarra.
  8. Brouthers, K., Brouthers, L., & Werner, S. (2008). Re source-based advantages in an international context. Journal of Management, 34(2), 189–217.
  9. Carter, W. R. (2015). Ambidexterity Deconstructed: A Hierarchy of Capabilities Perspective. Management Research Review, 38(8), 794-812.
  10. Chen, M. & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 453–482.
  11. Dahlmann, F. & Johanne, G. (2017). Environmental Managers and Institutional Work: Reconciling Tensions of Competing Institutional Logics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263-91.
  12. Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147-166.
  13. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbol, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232-263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Gaim, M. Wåhlin, N. & Clegg, S. (2018). Analyzing Competing Demands in Organizations: A Systematic Comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1),1-16.
  15. Garrido, E. Gomez, J. Maicas, J. & Orcos, R. (2014). The Institution-Based View of Strategy: How to Measure It. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(2), 82-101.
  16. Gatignon, G. Capron, L. (2018). The firm as an architect of polycentric governance: How natura built an open institutional infrastructure in Brazil. Wharton Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
  17. Ghorban nejad, M. baikzadeh, S.J. baigzadeh, Y. (2011). a framework of organizational legitimacy in order to create a favorable mental image for the successful implementation of organizational strategies. Iranian journal of public administration mission, 2(4), 54-71. (in persian).
  18. Gibson, CB. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
  19. Grandy, G. & Wicks, D. (2008). Competitive Advantage as a Legitimacy‐Creating Process: Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management. An International Journal, 3(1):21-41.
  20. Hahn , T. Figge , F. Pinkse , J. & Preuss , L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19( 4 ): 217 – 229 .
  21. Hahn, T. Jonatan, P. Lutz, P. & Frank, F. (2015). Ambidexterity for Corporate Social Performance. Organization Studies, 37(2): 213-35.
  22. Hardy, C. & Maguire, S. (2017). Institutional Entrepreneurship and Change in Fields. The sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 261.
  23. Jansen, J. Van den Bosch, F. & Volberda, H. (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Sci. 52(11):1661–1674.
  24. Jarzabkowski, P. Jane K, Lê. & Van de Ven, A. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3): 245-280.
  25. Khan, Z., Amankwah-Amoah, A., Lew, Y.K., Puthusserry, P., & Czinkota, M. (2020). Strategic Ambidexterity and Its Performance Implications for Emerging Economies Multinationals. International Business Review, in press.
  26. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of management review, 24(4):691-710.
  27. Lawrence, T. B. Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (2002) Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of management journal, 45(1): 281-290.
  28. Liu, Yi, Wenqian Li, & Yuan Li. (2019). Ambidexterity between Low Cost Strategy and Csr Strategy: Contingencies of Competition and Regulation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(3): 633-60.
  29. Moshabaki, A. Khodami, S. Taghavi, A. (2010). New integrated institutional theory and its role in creating competitive advantage. Journal of executive management, 38(1): 149-174. (in persian).
  30. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 697–713.
  31. Patel, A., Xavier, R. (2005). Legitimacy challenged: james hardie industries and the asbestos caseCiteseer. In: Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of the the Annual Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  32. Peng, M.W. (2009). Global Business Update. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason USA.
  33. Porac, J. F. Thomas, H. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26: 397–416.
  34. Quairel‐Lanoizelée, F. (2011). Are Competition and Corporate Social Responsibility Compatible? Society and Business Review, 6(1): 77-98.
  35. Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34: 375–409.
  36. Rothaermel, F. Deeds, D. (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25(3): 201–221.
  37. Rousseau , H. E. , Berrone , P. , & Walls , J . (2014) . Let’s talk: Examining dialogue among firms and outside actors on social and environmental issues. Academy of Management Proceedings . Philadelphia, PA : Academy of Management .
  38. Schneider , A . (2015). Refl exivity in sustainability accounting and management: Transcending the economic focus of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 127( 3 ): 525 – 537 .
  39. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511.
  40. Simsek Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 597–624.
  41. Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of management inquiry, 19(1):14-20.
  42. Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.
  43. Tushman, ML. & O’Reilly CA. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Management Rev, 38(4): 8–30.
  44. Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 169–188.
  45. Wright, M. Filatotchev, I. Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 1–33.
  46. Zhao, E. Fisher, G. Lounsbury, M. & Miller, D. (2017). Optimal Distinctiveness: Broadening the Interface between Institutional Theory and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 93-113.
Journal of Strategic Management Studies
Volume 13, Issue 49
April 2022
Pages 19-38

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 09 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 10 November 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics