مزیت رقابتی در سازمان های بخش دولتی: توضیح تناقض مزیت رقابتی پایدار/خوب دولتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|8268||2005||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 58, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 232–240
Resource-based views of the firm and in particular Kay's (Why Firms Succeed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995) model of sustainable competitive advantage have been used to advance an understanding of differences in the competitive advantage of private-sector firms. We extend the analysis to a public-sector firm where its major purpose includes engaging in public good by giving away its knowledge base and services. The case highlights the paradox that many public-sector organizations face in simultaneously pursuing public good and sustainable competitive advantage. While Kay's model is applicable for understanding intergovernmental agency competition, we find it necessary to incorporate resource dependency theory to address the paradox. Implications for theory and practice are provided.
Kay (1995) presents the notion of sustained competitive advantage in organizations obtained through relational architecture, reputation, innovation, and strategic assets. At the core of Kay's model is the resource-based theory of the firm that focuses on the internal attributes or the resources and capabilities of the firm where, in order for the resources and capabilities of a firm to provide superior performance, they must be (1) valuable in the sense of enabling a firm to exploit its environmental opportunities (and/or neutralize its threats), (2) rare among its current or potential competitors, (3) costly to imitate, and (4) without close strategic substitutes (Barney, 1991). Kay states that organizations have a strong architecture where there is an expectation of long-term relationships both within the firm and among its members, a commitment to sharing the rewards of collective achievement and a high but unstructured degree of informality. He contends that this architecture adds value to individual contributions of its members through the creation of organizational knowledge, through the establishment of a cooperative ethic within the organization and by the implementation of organizational routines. For Kay (1995, p. 27) and others (see the work of the IMP group; Hakansson, 1982, Hakansson, 1987, Hakansson, 1989, Hakansson and Snehota, 1995, Axelsson and Easton, 1992 and Moller and Wilson, 1995, good commercial relationships are fashioned through cooperation (joint activity towards a shared goal), coordination (the need for mutually consistent responses), and differentiation (the avoidance of mutually incompatible activities). However, Kay in passing, also suggests that the notion of sustained competitive advantage is relevant for understanding the differences in performances of nonprofit organizations in situations, “where the added value or benefits are not retained by the firm, but instead are distributed to its members or the community” (Kay, 1995, p. 174). Unfortunately, Kay does not give attention to the paradox this raises, where the purpose of the organization is to create knowledge and services and give them away for the public good rather than maximizing private profit. The aim of this paper is to explore ways of addressing the public–private good paradox as it exists within Kay's notion of sustained competitive advantage, when it is applied to public-sector organizations. We structure this paper by first describing the paradox. We then systematically apply Kay's sustainable competitive advantage framework of architecture, reputation, innovation, and strategic assets to identify the specific capabilities of the organization. We investigate the power of his framework to capture the effectiveness of a large public-sector R&D organization, where innovation is its core business. The analysis illustrates the paradox as well as the need to integrate resource dependency considerations into Kay's notion of sustained competitive advantage if it is to be a useful framework for advancing public-sector applications.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The current form of the Sun State organization attempts to maximize the resources of the firm in the context of competition with other public-sector agencies. The constraints these departments face as well as their competitive advantage can be explained by resource dependency. As private-sector organizations move to more triple bottom-line approaches where their ability to survive is tied to a certain extent with their reputation not just to profitability, we are likely to find that resource dependency arguments are also applicable to the private sector. Kay's advice for improving private-sector firm performance is not to engage in triple bottom-line approaches; “the less often that managers are forced to choose between corporate advantage and social concerns the better it will be for all” (Kay, 1995, p. 234). Our case study illustrates the weaknesses of his argument where organizations have mandated multiple objectives or have a restriction in choice of actions because of their dependencies for survival on a limited number of external constituents. For public-sector organizations, established and funded to provide public good, these are not exceptions but the general case. Our analyses suggest that the notions of sustained competitive advantage and the resource-based view of the firm do have some application for public-sector organizations, but this application is limited to situations where competition is sanctioned and is possible. An implication of this is that managers need to recognize that they are often simultaneously managing within multiple structures, some that fit Kay's notion of strategic competitive advantage and others that do not. These structures can (and do) coexist to meet these different resource dependent objectives. It is the recognition and use of these coexisting structures that facilitate the management of the public good paradox. The data do suggest that the specific choice of structure is related to whom the manager is responding and for what purpose. For instance, different budget control structures are employed for communicating accountability to the minister, as compared to those used in communicating to a research scientist. Resource dependency theory has much to add to the application of Kay's model for addressing issues of sustainable competitive advantage, whether the firm is in the public or private sector. Almost 30 years ago, Mintzberg (1975) pointed out that most managers juggle multiple agendas. For public-sector managers, one of the agendas embedded in their relationships with some of their key stakeholders is public good, for others, the multiple agendas might include profitability. Kay has enriched this picture with his notion of managers achieving sustainable competitive advantage although further actions that shape innovation, reputation, architecture, and asset structures of firms. Utilizing resource dependency notions we have suggested how this juggling across these attributes might occur in terms of the salience and priority of those whose resources the manager is dependent upon. How this juggling unfolds in practice is yet to be systematically documented. More research is needed to advance our understanding of the ways that managers deal with sustainable competitive advantage notions when they are simultaneously trying to achieve other objectives associated with public good.