Eksplorować czy eksploatować relacje międzyorganizacyjne?

• Autorzy: Ewa Stańczyk-Hugiet

Warianty tytułu

Exploitation or Exploration of Interorganisational Relationships?

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Celem artykułu jest analiza relacji międzyorganizacyjnych, przeprowadzona na gruncie teorii relacji słabych versus relacje silne. Na bazie teorii słabych i silnych relacji dyskusja dotycząca dualizmu eksploatacji i eksploracji relacji pozwoliła na sformułowanie zaleceń odnoszących się do budowania portfela strategicznego relacji ze wskazaniem na rolę w tym portfelu silnych relacji i relacji słabych. Do najważniejszych ustaleń poczynionych w wyniku przeprowadzonych badań należy, co następuje: (1) eksploatacja i eksploracja relacji słabych i silnych jest pozorną sprzecznością, (2) działania organizacji w kategoriach eksploatacji i eksploracji relacji skutkują obraniem ścieżki rozwoju wewnętrznego lub na podstawie zasobów zewnętrznych, (3) najbardziej wartościowe są strategie ujmujące jednocześnie eksploatację i eksplorację relacji(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

This article aims to analyze the interorganizational relationship carried out on the basis of weak versus strong relationship theory. On the basis of the theory of weak and strong relations the discussion on the duality of exploitation and exploration of relationships allowed to formulate recommendations for building a portfolio of strategic relationships with an indication of the role in this portfolio of strong relationships and weak relationships. The most important findings made by the study include: (1) the exploitation and exploration of the weak and strong relationship are a superficial contradiction, (2) the organizational activities in terms of exploitation and exploration of relationships result in adopting growth path based on internal development or on external resources, (3) the most appreciated are the strategies engaging at the same time exploitation and exploration of the relationship(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Eksploatacja; Organizacja; Relacje organizacyjne

EN

Exploitation; Organisation; Organizational relationships

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 420 Strategie. Procesy i praktyki
• Strony: 286-299

Twórcy

autor

Ewa Stańczyk-Hugiet

• Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu

Bibliografia

• Anderson E., Jap S.D., 2005, The dark side of close relationships, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 46, no. 3.
• Burt R.S., 1992, Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H.P., 2009, Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4.
• Czakon W., 2012, Strukturalne uwarunkowania zarządzania wiedzą w sieciach, Przegląd Organizacji, nr 5.
• Dyer J.H., Singh H., 1998, The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 4.
• Gartner W.B., Brush C.B., 1999, Entrepreneurship as organizing: emergence, newness and transformation, Academy of Management Conference, 7 August, Chicago.
• Grandori A., 2012, Interfirm Networks: Organization and Industrial Competitiveness, Routledge.
• Granovetter M.S., 1983, The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 1, no. 6.
• Gupta A.K., Smith K.G., Shalley C.E., 2006, The interplay between exploration and exploitation, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, no. 4.
• Håkansson H., Ford D., Gadde L.-E., Snehota I., Waluszewski A., 2009, Business in Networks, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
• He Z.-L., Wong P.-K., 2004, Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, vol. 15, no. 4.
• Hite J.M., Hesterly W.S., 2001, The evolution of firm networks, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 3.
• Hoffmann W.H., 2007, Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 8.
• Inkpen A.C., Tsang E.W.K., 2005, Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 1.
• Jansen J.J.P., Simsek Z., Cao Q., 2012, Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 33, nr 11.
• Jansen J.J.P., Tempelaar M.P., Van Den Bosch F.A.J., Volberda H.W., 2009, Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4.
• Kang S-C., Morris S.S., Snell S.A., 2007, Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: extending the human resource architecture, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 1.
• Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M.L., 2010, Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations, The Academy of Management Annals, no. 4.
• Lin Z., Yang H., Demirkan I., 2007, The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic
• alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing, Management Science, vol. 53, no. 10.
• Mariotti F., Delbridge R., 2001, Managing Portfolios Of Ties In Inter-Firm Networks, artykuł prezentowany na konferencji: Nelson and Winter Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, June 12-15, 2001.
• McEvily B., Marcus A., 2005, Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 11.
• Mitręga M., Zolkiewski J., 2012, Negative consequences of deep relationships with suppliers: An exploratory study in Poland, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 41, no. 5.
• O'Reilly C., Tushman M., 2004, The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review, 82, no. 4.
• O'Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2004, The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review, vol. 82, nr 4.
• Pressey A.D., Tzokas N., 2004, Lighting up the dark side of relationship marketing, Management Decision, vol. 42, no. 5.
• Reinartz W., Krafft M., Hoyer W.D., 2004, The customer relationship management process: its measurement and impact on performance, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 61, no. 1.
• Ritala P., Ellonen H.-K.a, 2010, Competitive advantage in interfirm cooperation: old and new explanations, Competitiveness Review, vol. 20, no. 5.
• Sabatini F., 2005, Social Capital as Social Networks. A New Framework for Measurement, Working Paper no. 83, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics.
• Sopińska A., Wachowiak P., 2006, Modele zarządzania wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie, E-mentor, nr 1.
• Tushman M., O'Reilly C., 1996, Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, vol. 38, no. 4.
• Uzzi B., 1996, The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect, American Sociological Review, no. 61.
• Uzzi B., 1997, Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly, nr 42.
• Uzzi B., 1999, Embeddedness in the market of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing, American Sociological Review, no. 64.
• Walter A., Auer M., Ritter T., 2006, The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 21, no. 4.
• Williamson O.E., 1991, Economic institutions: spontaneous and intentional governance, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, no. 7.
• Woolcock M., 1998, Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society, vol. 27, no. 2.
• Zaheer A., Soda G., 2009, Network evolution: the origins of structural holes, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 1.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/pn.2016.420.25