دانلود ترجمه مقاله کاربرد کارآفرینی استراتژیک در کشف صلاحیت

بخشی از ترجمه:

کارآفرینی استراتژیک، از تلاش ها و فعالیت های شرکت به منظور بدست آوردن فرصت ها و مزایا استفاده میکند. ولی در حال حاضر پژوهش های کمی در زمینه ی مکانیسمی برای تسهیل در پروسه ی کارآفرینی استراتژیک صورت گرفته است. با توجه به مفاهیم کشف صلاحیت ، ما به بررسی تأثیرات آنها بر روی کارآفرینی استراتژیک خواهیم پرداخت. از نظر تئوری، مؤلفه های کارآفرینی در کارآفرینی استراتژیک( و ظرز قکر کارآفرینانه و ایجاد نوآوری) باید از کشف صلاحیت بهره برده ، در حالی که مؤلفه های استراتژیک آن(مدیریت منابع به صورت استراتژیک و اجرای مزایای رقابتی) نیز باید از کشف صلاحیت بهره ببرد ولی اینکار به صورت برعکس ممکن نیست. یافته های ما پیشنهاد میکند که این دوگانی تئوری عملی نخواهد شد.
مقدمه
نیاز برای برقراری تعادل بر روی رفتار فرصت طلبانه(کارآفرینی) و رفتار مزیت طلبانه(مدیریت استراتژیک)، یک نگرانی مدیریتی مختصری را مطرح ساخته است. دست یابی موقفیت آمیز به این تعادل را میتوان کارآفرینی استراتژیک نامید. Hitt و Sirmon در سال ٢٠٠٣، کارآفرینی استراتژیک را به عنوان یک دنباله ی ۴ خطی از مراحلی مطرح ساختند که به وسیله ی آنها یک شرکت میتواند حادثه های ضمنی رفتار استراتژیک و کارآفرینی را در یک پروسه ی کارآفرینی استراتژیک تغییر دهد. این ۴ مؤلفه عبارتند از:
١. طرز فکر کارآفرینانه: به منظور تشخیص فرصت ها(کارآفرینانه)
٢. مدیریت منابع به صورت استراتژیک
٣. ایجاد نوآوری(کارافرینانه) و
۴. اجرای مزایای رقابتی(استراتژیک)

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction The need to balance opportunity-seeking behaviour (entrepreneurship) and advantage-seeking behaviour (strategic management) represents a chief management concern (Schindehutte and Morris 2009). Successfully achieving this balance has been labelled as ‘strategic entrepreneurship’. Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon (2003) depict strategic entrepreneurship as a four-step linear sequence of stages by which a firm alternates between episodes of entrepreneurial and strategic behaviour in a process of strategic entrepreneurship. Its four components are labelled as (1) an ‘entrepreneurial mindset’ to identify opportunities (entrepreneurial), (2) ‘managing resources strategically’ (strategic), (3) ‘creating innovation’ (entrepreneurial), and (4) ‘executing competitive advantages’ (strategic). The successful completion of these stages in turn should create value and wealth in ways far superior to a firm competent at entrepreneurship or strategy alone. The study of strategic entrepreneurship is important for two reasons. First, the success or failure of a firm at strategic entrepreneurship holds the potential to explain why firms that identify opportunities prove unable to exploit them sufficiently and fail to develop requisite competitive advantages, and explain why firms with competitive advantages lose their ability to identify *Corresponding author. Email: l.kyrgidou@ihu.edu.gr ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online © ۲۰۱۱ Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.585040 http://www.informaworld.com Downloaded by [Shahid Beheshti University] at 17:58 01 August 2011 698 L.P. Kyrgidou and E. Petridou valuable entrepreneurial opportunities, lose market position and fail to sustain advantages over time (Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon 2003; Schindehutte and Morris 2009). Second, the returns to strategic entrepreneurship can create wealth for organisations and society (e.g., Schendel and Hitt 2007). For organisations, strategic entrepreneurship synthesises both entrepreneurial and strategic action concurrently to optimise the pursuit of opportunity and the creation of advantage in turn. In doing so, the ability of the firm to create value for shareholders increases in its novelty and durability (e.g., Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon 2003; Monsen and Boss 2009; Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland 2007). For society, strategic entrepreneurship contributes through the creation of new value that better meets social needs (Schendel and Hitt 2007). Despite the construct’s importance, however, important gaps exist in our understanding of the ways in which firms can achieve strategic entrepreneurship (e.g., Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon 2003; Luke and Verreynne 2006; Monsen and Boss 2009; Upson, Ketchen and Ireland 2007), and consequently how its wealth and value creation potential can be realised. This problem is grounded in the difficulties firms face in continuously managing the four components of strategic entrepreneurship. Conflict can arise from efforts to adapt between entrepreneurial and strategic actions. This might occur when change in the environment presents challenges to existing competitive advantage or market strengths. Consider the example of Sony and Apple. When Apple introduced iTunes and iPod in response to the digital music opportunity, Sony, although traditionally entrepreneurially oriented, attempted to protect its current technology and market position by deploying resources to consolidate its position in the music industry. Strategically, this was a rational response to a threat, but in the meantime, it lost sight of potential entrepreneurial opportunities. It has taken Sony great effort to provide a rival to iPod but still has no actual alternative for iTunes, despite more than six years of aggressive market activity. So, an excessive emphasis on managing current resources may undermine the capacity to innovate and respond to change, hence the complexity of completing the process of strategic entrepreneurship activity. This example illustrates the problem present in strategic entrepreneurship research: we know little of the mechanisms that aid strategic entrepreneurship’s components to work effectively. We posit that the theory of organisational adaptation and its twin concepts of competence exploration and competence exploitation (Atuahene-Gima 2005; March 1991), can help scholars and managers understand organisational antecedents to strategic entrepreneurship. Competencies capture the skills and related routines that influence a firm’s ability to create and deliver superior value and wealth (Day 1994), reflecting an organisational attitude manifested in investment decisions (Chandy and Tellis 1998) that can lead to one set of activities being prioritised over another (Leonard-Barton 1992; March 1991). Competence exploration is defined as the tendency of a firm to invest resources to acquire entirely new knowledge, skills and processes (Atuahene-Gima 2005). It represents actions and attitudes pertaining to discovery and experimentation, which theoretically might enhance a firm’s efforts to identify entrepreneurial opportunities and create innovation (March 1991; Schindehutte and Morris 2009). Competence exploitation represents acts of refinement and gradual improvement, which theoretically might enhance a firm’s efforts to manage resources efficiently and strategically and enhance its efforts to execute and optimise current advantages (March 1991; Schindehutte and Morris 2009; Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland 2007). Both also carry risk. The antagonistic nature of competence exploration and exploitation and their connection to strategic entrepreneurship has been highlighted at the conceptual level (Schindehutte and Morris 2009). As organisational attitudes manifested in very different investment decisions, the tendency of competence exploitation to crowd out competence exploration risks compromising the entrepreneurial components of strategic entrepreneurship (Atuahene-Gima 2005). Equally, Downloaded by [Shahid Beheshti University] at 17:58 01 August 2011 The effect of competence exploration 699 competence exploration and its tendency towards discovery, experimentation and radical change might inhibit a firm from capitalising on its current resources and advantages in increasingly optimal ways (Atuahene-Gima 2005). Given the theoretical salience of competence exploration and competence exploitation as possible antecedents to strategic entrepreneurship, and in light of the dysfunctional effects theory posits they can have, the following research question emerges: What relationship exists between competence exploration, competence exploitation and strategic entrepreneurship? To answer this question, the study examines: (a) whether competence exploration solely influences the entrepreneurial components of strategic entrepreneurship; (b) whether competence exploitation solely influences the strategic components of strategic entrepreneurship; (c) whether competence exploration has a dysfunctional effect on the strategic components of strategic entrepreneurship; and (d) whether competence exploitation has a dysfunctional effect on the entrepreneurial components of strategic entrepreneurship. Our work contributes in a number of ways. Research related to strategic entrepreneurship to date remains primarily theoretical in nature. The current study constitutes one of the first attempts to operationalise the construct based on Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon’s (2003) model. This is a primary step prior to an analysis of the means to manage strategic entrepreneurship. Therein, the study examines the implications of investments made towards the processes of competence exploration and exploitation for enabling strategic entrepreneurship. In doing so, we contribute to scholarly calls to empirically understand their relationship with strategic entrepreneurship (Schindehutte and Morris 2009), and to knowledge about whether the dysfunctional effects of competence exploration and competence exploitation impact upon strategic entrepreneurship. The paper is organised into three parts. Next, relevant literature and theory are examined to specify the relationships expected among competence exploration, competence exploitation and strategic entrepreneurship. Afterwards, the research methodology and results are reported. The paper finishes with a review of the contributions to theory and managers from the study findings.