فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

قابلیت شبکه‌سازی و عملکرد راهبردی سازمان با انعطاف‌پذیری راهبردی و دوسوتوانی سازمانی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در محیط رقابتی متلاطم امروزی، دستیابی به عملکرد استراتژیک برای بقا و رشد شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان در بازارهای هدف خود بسیار حائز اهمیت است. یکی از راه‌های دستیابی به این هدف دشوار، جذب منابع از طریق شبکه‌سازی با شرکا و سایر شرکت‌هاست. لذا هدف این پژوهش بررسی رابطه قابلیت شبکه‌سازی و عملکرد استراتژیک سازمان با تأکید بر نقش میانجی‌گری انعطاف‌پذیری استراتژیک و تعدیل‌گری دوسوتوانی سازمانی در شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان حوزه فناوری اطلاعات است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف، کاربردی و رویکرد کمی دارد و از نظر ماهیت روش و گردآوری اطلاعات، توصیفی‌-‌پیمایشی است. جامعه هدف این پژوهش شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان فعال در حوزه فناوری اطلاعات و تجارت الکترونیک مستقر در پارک علم‌وفناوری پردیس، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس و دانشگاه شهید بهشتی می‌باشد که تعداد آن‌ها 50 شرکت بوده که 44 شرکت بصورت تصادفی انتخاب شدند. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که قابلیت شبکه‌سازی بر عملکرد استراتژیک و انعطاف‌پذیری استراتژیک در شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان حوزه فناوری اطلاعات تأثیر مثبت و معناداری دارد و همچنین انعطاف‌پذیری استراتژیک بر عملکرد استراتژیک تأثیر مثبت و معنادار دارد و نقش میانجی‌گر در رابطه قابلیت شبکه‌سازی و عملکرد استراتژیک دارد. اما دوسوتوانی سازمانی نمی‌تواند نقش تعدیل‌گر بر رابطه این دو متغیر داشته باشد. در نهایت به مدیران این شرکت‌ها پیشنهاد شد تا به جای تمرکز بر اهداف مالی، بر اهداف استراتژیک برای ارزیابی عملکرد خود تمرکز کنند و با منعطف کردن استراتژی‌های خود، موجب خلق هم‌افزایی و ایجاد هماهنگی با ذی‌نفعان کلیدی خود شوند تا از این طریق بتوانند منابع کلیدی را جذب شرکت‌های خود کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Networking capability and strategic performance of the organization with strategic flexibility and organizational ambidexterity

نویسندگان English

Sajad Farsi 1
Vahid Khashei Varnamkhasti 2
1 PhD student, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: With the increasing development of technology, the global economy has shifted its approach from the traditional economy to a knowledge-based economy based on science and technology. The high profitability of these companies and the necessity of effective activity in the field of resistance economy have made the position of knowledge-based companies, as the driving engine of economy at the level of the country, very important. Due to the importance of knowledge-based companies in the Iran's economy, evaluating the strategic performance of these companies has become very important. In the dynamic and turbulent environment that is full of changes in which knowledge-based companies operate, these companies must have superior performance and stabilize their position in order to compete with their competitors. One of the most important elements that has a fundamental impact on the strategic performance of an organization is the company's ability to create, develop and use its (internal and external) relationships to obtain the required resources and continuous improvement in performance indicators, i.e. networking capability. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between networking ability and strategic performance of the organization, emphasizing the mediating role of strategic flexibility and also moderating organizational ambivalence in knowledge-based companies in the field of information technology.
  Methodology: In terms of purpose, this research is applied and has a quantitative approach, in terms of the nature of the method and data collection, it is descriptive-survey and in terms of time, it is a cross-sectional research. In this research, the library method has been used in order to collect theoretical topics and develop the conceptual model of the research. Also, a field study and data collection has been done through a questionnaire. The target community of this research is knowledge-based companies active in the field of information technology and e-commerce located in Pardis Science and Technology Park, Tarbiat Modares University and Shahid Beheshti University. The number of these companies is 50, based on simple random sampling, 44 companies were selected as samples and the data required for the research was collected from them. Convergent and divergent validity methods were used to check construct validity. The reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's alpha measurement method and compound reliability. Cronbach's alpha values of all variables are higher than 0.7, so the questionnaire has the required reliability. In this research, the method of data analysis is descriptive statistics and inferential statistics by analyzing the relationships between variables through correlation matrix, structural equation test and model fit test, and Smart pls3  was used to perform inferential statistical analysis and Spss24 was used for descriptive statistical analysis.
  Results and Discussion: The results of this test show that the field of fintech and banking information technology has the most frequency among the studied organizations. Also, the findings show that most of the studied companies are between 5 and 10 years old. The results of the K-S test showed that the data of this research are not normal. Also, the data of this research have convergent and divergent validity. The overall fit index of the model (GOF) also shows a number of 0.625. This value shows the very appropriate power of the model in predicting the endogenous current variable of the model. Finally, the results of the hypothesis test are as follows: the significance statistic between networking ability and strategic performance is equal to 2.520, which is greater than 1.96 and indicates the significance of the relationship between these two variables at the 95% confidence level. The significance statistic between networking capability and strategic flexibility is equal to 185/402, which is greater than 1/96 and indicates the significance of the relationship between these two variables. The significance statistic between strategic flexibility and strategic performance is equal to 3.158, which is greater than 1.96 and indicates the significance of the relationship between these two variables. The significance statistic between the moderator variable of organizational ambidexterity and strategic performance is equal to 0.925, which is smaller than 1.96 and indicates the non-significance of the relationship between these two variables at the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the organizational ambidexterity variable cannot have a significant effect as a moderator in the relationship between networking capability and strategic performance. Sobel's test was used to check the mediator variable. According to the results of this test, the value of Z-value or the Sobel test statistic is equal to 2.932, which is higher than 1.96. Therefore, strategic flexibility plays a mediating role in the relationship between networking capability and strategic performance.
Conclusion: The results have significant implications for policymakers and managers of knowledge-based companies in the field of information technology that are operating in Iran. This study shows that knowledge-based IT companies should focus on strategic and long-term performance instead of pursuing financial performance goals. Achieving strategic performance is possible when managers consider long-term performance dimensions such as the company's ability to achieve strategic goals, long-term profitability, stable market share, long-term growth in sales and revenue. On the other hand, in order to create flexibility in strategies and improve business performance strategically, managers should focus on networking capabilities that help explain when and how companies find and exploit synergies. Networking capability enhances organizational creativity by integrating and creating synergies through combined knowledge. These mutual efforts make senior management more flexible in identifying future opportunities that are more innovative, aligned, and desirable. Therefore, management in practice should emphasize the development of networking capability in order to achieve strategic flexibility. The results of this study suggest that managers should coordinate with all stakeholders to identify the dynamic behavior of the environment in order to make the necessary changes in organizational strategies to achieve performance, and create a sustainable strategy. Achieving strategic performance is a difficult goal, and network capability may lead knowledge-based firms to strategic performance, but this mechanism may be more appropriate when management focuses on implementing flexible strategies.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Networking ability
Strategic performance
Strategic flexibility
Organizational ambidexterity
  1. Acosta, A. S., Crespo, Á. H., & Agudo, J. C. (2018). Effect of market orientation, network capability and entrepreneurial orientation on international performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). International Business Review, 27(6), 1128-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.04.004
  2. Awais, M., Ali, A., Khattak, M. S., Arfeen, M. I., Chaudhary, M. A. I., & Syed, A. (2023). Strategic Flexibility and Organizational Performance: Mediating Role of Innovation. SAGE Open, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231181432
  3. Bai, W., Holmström Lind, C., & Johanson, M. (2016). The performance of international returnee ventures: the role of networking capability and the usefulness of international business knowledge. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(9-10), 657-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1234003
  4. Bai, W., Liu, R. and Zhou, L. (2020), “Enhancing the learning advantages of newness: the role of internal social capital in the international performance of young entrepreneurial firms”. Journal of International Management, 26(2), p. 100733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100733
  5. Baird, K. (2017). The effectiveness of strategic performance measurement systems. International journal of productivity and performance management, 66(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2014-0086
  6. Brozovic, D. (2016). Strategic flexibility: a review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12111
  7. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Soto-Acosta, P., & Wensley, A. K. (2016). Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: The role of organizational agility. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1544-1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.014
  8. Chakma, R., Paul, J., & Dhir, S. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 121-137. https://10.1109/TEM.2021.3114609
  9. Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2009). Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: An empirical examination. International journal of hospitality management, 28(2), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.08.003
  10. Dai, Y., Goodale, J. C., Byun, G., & Ding, F. (2018). Strategic flexibility in new high technology ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 55(2), 265-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12288
  11. El-Hindawy, M. A., & Alamasi, A. M. (2014). Measurement of the strategic performance of hospitality in the kingdom of saudi arabia: A balanced scorecard approach (BSC). Arab Economic and Business Journal, 9(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2013.02.001
  12. Fernández-Pérez, V., Javier Llorens Montes, F., & Jesus Garcia-Morales, V. (2014). Towards strategic flexibility: social networks, climate and uncertainty. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 858-871. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2013-0483
  13. Furlan, A., & Vinelli, A. (2018). Unpacking the coexistence between improvement and innovation in world-class manufacturing: A dynamic capability approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.022
  14. Garousi Mokhtarzadeh, N., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Jafarpanah, I., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Classification of inter-organizational knowledge mechanisms and their effects on networking capability: a multi-layer decision making approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(7), 1665-1688. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2020-0579
  15. Garousi Mokhtarzadeh, N., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Jafarpanah, I., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., & Cardinali, S. (2020). Investigating the impact of networking capability on firm innovation performance: using the resource-action-performance framework. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 1009-1034. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2020-0005
  16. Gelderman, C. J., Semeijn, J., & Mertschuweit, P. P. (2016). The impact of social capital and technological uncertainty on strategic performance: The supplier perspective. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(3), 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.05.004
  17. Guo, H., & Cao, Z. (2014). Strategic flexibility and SME performance in an emerging economy: A contingency perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(2), 273-298. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2012-0177
  18. Gutierrez Gutierrez, L. J., & Fernández Pérez, V. (2010). Managerial networks and strategic flexibility: a QM perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(8), 1192-1214. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011077834
  19. Herhausen, D., Morgan, R. E., Brozović, D., & Volberda, H. W. (2021). Re‐examining strategic flexibility: a meta‐analysis of its antecedents, consequences and contingencies. British Journal of Management, 32(2), 435-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12413
  20. Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism management, 32(4), 790-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.019
  21. Jacobsen, D. (2017). Tourism enterprises beyond the margins: the relational practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander SMEs in remote Australia. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1152290
  22. Javed, A., Yasir, M., & Majid, A. (2019). Is social entrepreneurship a panacea for sustainable enterprise development?. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(1), 1-29. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/196185
  23. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. SAGE Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082127
  24. Kim, E. Y., Ko, E., Kim, H., & Koh, C. E. (2008). Comparison of benefits of radio frequency identification: Implications for business strategic performance in the US and Korean retailers. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 797-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.01.007
  25. Lans, T., Blok, V., & Gulikers, J. (2015). Show me your network and I'll tell you who you are: social competence and social capital of early-stage entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(7-8), 458-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1070537
  26. Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Wamba, S. F., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management's commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of cleaner production, 180, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.106
  27. Li, X., & Wang, C. (2022). Entrepreneurial bricolage and marketing capability: contingent roles of market turbulence and strategic flexibility. Asian Business & Management, 21(3), 458-481. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-021-00171-1
  28. Lin, F. J., & Lin, Y. H. (2016). The effect of network relationship on the performance of SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1780-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.055
  29. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
  30. Majid, A., Yasir, M., & Yasir, M. (2017). Individual and work dynamics affecting the determinants of functional flexibility in SMEs: evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 9(2), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-03-2016-0008
  31. Majid, A., Yasir, M., Yousaf, Z., & Qudratullah, H. (2019). Role of network capability, structural flexibility and management commitment in defining strategic performance in hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(8), 3077-3096. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2018-0277
  32. Marchiori, D., & Franco, M. (2020). Knowledge transfer in the context of inter-organizational networks: Foundations and intellectual structures. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.02.001
  33. Meng, M., Lei, J., Jiao, J., & Tao, Q. (2020). How does strategic flexibility affect bricolage: The moderating role of environmental turbulence. Plos one, 15(8), e0238030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238030
  34. Miroshnychenko, I., Strobl, A., Matzler, K., & De Massis, A. (2021). Absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility, and business model innovation: Empirical evidence from Italian SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 130, 670-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.015
  35. Mitręga, M. (2012). Network partner knowledge and internal relationships influencing customer relationship quality and company performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(6), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621211251488
  36. Ng, B. K., Kanagasundram, T., Wong, C. Y., & Chandran, V. G. R. (2016). Innovation for inclusive development in Southeast Asia: the roles of regional coordination mechanisms. The Pacific Review, 29(4), 573-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1022590
  37. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2021). The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(4), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711
  38. Rouhani Rad, S., & Tayebi Abolhasani, A. (2020). The Requirements of Successful Market Entry for Startup Knowledge-based Companies (Case Study: ICT Companies in Tehran). Journal of Technology Development Management, 8(1), 185-220. doi: 10.22104/jtdm.2020.3607.2248. (In Persian).
  39. Sakhdari, K. (2015). Networking ability and organizational entrepreneurial performance: explaining the role of organizational strategic tendencies (case study: companies providing technical and engineering equipment and services to the mining and mineral industries of Iran). Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 8(1), 159-174 (In Persian).
  40. Schnellbächer, B., Heidenreich, S., & Wald, A. (2019). Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity–A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. European Management Journal, 37(4), 442-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.002
  41. Sen, S., Savitskie, K., Mahto, R. V., Kumar, S., & Khanin, D. (2023). Strategic flexibility in small firms. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31(5), 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2036223
  42. Shah, H. A., Yasir, M., Majid, A., Yasir, M., & Javed, A. (2020). Promoting strategic performance through strategic orientation and strategic renewal: a moderated mediation model. Management Decision, 58(2), 376-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2019-0536
  43. Shalender, K., & Yadav, R. K. (2019). Strategic flexibility, manager personality, and firm performance: The case of Indian Automobile Industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0204-x
  44. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of management studies, 46(4), 597-624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
  45. Sotudeh arani, H., Baghbani arani, A., Maghsoudi Ganjeh, Y., mahtari arani, M., & sarple, Z. (2021). Analysis of the effect of talent management processes on networking capability and organizational performance (Case study: Agricultural cooperatives of Isfahan province). Co-Operation and Agriculture, 10(37), 183-199. (In Persian).
  46. Srećković, M. (2018). The performance effect of network and managerial capabilities of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 50, 807-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9896-0
  47. Story, V. M., Raddats, C., Burton, J., Zolkiewski, J., & Baines, T. (2017). Capabilities for advanced services: A multi-actor perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.015
  48. Trieu, H. D., Van Nguyen, P., Nguyen, T. T., Vu, H. M., & Tran, K. (2023). Information technology capabilities and organizational ambidexterity facilitating organizational resilience and firm performance of SMEs. Asia Pacific Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.03.004
  49. Tublin, S. (2011). Discipline and freedom in relational technique. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 47(4), 519-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2011.10746475
  50. Vesper, C., Schmitz, L., Safra, L., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016). The role of shared visual information for joint action coordination. Cognition, 153, 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.002
  51. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of business venturing, 21(4), 541-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005
  52. Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach. Corporate communications: An international journal, 12(2), 177-198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
  53. Yousaf, Z., & Majid, A. (2016). Strategic performance through inter-firm networks: strategic alignment and moderating role of environmental dynamism. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 12(4), 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-03-2016-0015
  54. Yousaf, Z., & Majid, A. (2017). Enterprise development revisited: does coordination, relational skill and partner knowledge really matter?. International Journal of Applied Management Science, 9(2), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAMS.2017.084947
  55. Yousaf, Z., & Majid, A. (2018). Organizational network and strategic business performance: does organizational flexibility and entrepreneurial orientation really matter?. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 268-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2016-0298
  56. Zacca, R., Dayan, M., & Ahrens, T. (2015). Impact of network capability on small business performance. Management Decision, 53(1), 2-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2013-0587
  57. Zakeri, Mohammad, Rahimian, Mohammad, & Nosrati, Mahdi. (2021). Investigating The Effect Of Organizational Factors On Performance With Emphasis On The Mediating Role Of Dual Power And The Moderating Role Of Environmental Dynamics. Towsee-Quarterly Development Of The Human Resources And Logistics, 16(61), 57-82. (In Persian)
  58. Zang, S., Wang, H., & Zhou, J. (2022). Impact of eco-embeddedness and strategic flexibility on innovation performance of non-core firms: The perspective of ecological legitimacy. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100266

  • تاریخ دریافت 12 مرداد 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری 13 شهریور 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش 08 آبان 1402