مدیریت بازاریابی هوشمند

مدیریت بازاریابی هوشمند

تأثیر عزم استراتژیک بر تغییر استراتژیک هوشمند با میانجی‌گری تدوین استراتژی (مورد مطالعه: بانک رفاه کارگران)

نوع مقاله : استخراج از پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد

نویسندگان
1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت بازرگانی، گرایش مدیریت استراتژیک، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
عزم استراتژیک به نوعی جاه طلبی یا وسواس برای رسیدن به چیزی یا به عنوان وسواس برنده شدن شناخته می‌شود و به عنوان پشتوانه و نیروی اثر گذار بر تدوین استراتژی، مسیر تغییرات استراتژیک مورد نظر را مشخص‌تر و یکدست تر می‌کند. جامعه این پژوهش را مدیران و کارشناسان بانک رفاه کارگران در شعب تهران تشکیل داده و حجم آن به تعداد 1000 نفر تخمین زده میشود. روش نمونه گیری، خوشه ای دو مرحله‌ای است که از 70 شعبه تصادفی شهر تهران این بانک به دست آمد و حجم نمونه طبق جدول مورگان 278 می‌باشد. پرسشنامه استفاده شده به عنوان ابزار این پژوهش شامل ۵۸ سوال می‌باشد که پاسخ دهندگان با استفاده از طیف پنج سطحی لیکرت به آن پاسخ داده‌اند. در این پژوهش روایی با استفاده از روایی همگرا و روایی واگرا و پایایی با استفاده از پایایی کرونباخ و پایایی ترکیبی سنجیده شد. نتایج AVE نشان دهنده این موارد هستند که، پرسشنامه و متغیرها روایی خوبی دارند. شاخص CVR کل برای سنجش روایی محتوایی است نیز ٠.۹ می‌باشد. میانگین ضرایب آلفای کرونباخ برای مجموع معیارها برابر با ٠.۸۵۹ برآورد شده که بالاتر از ٠.۷ می‌باشد. بر اساس مقدار 0.699= GOF نیز مقداری قویی دارد، پس می‌توان گفت برازش کلی، مقدار بالایی است و برازش مدل تایید است. بنابراین بین عزم استراتژیک با تغییر استراتژیک با توجه به نقش میانجی تدوین استراتژی رابطه مثبت وجود دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

The Effect of Strategic Intent on Smart Strategic Change with the Mediation of Strategic Formulation (case study: Refah Kargaran Bank)

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Hasan Bahmanirad 1
Mahdi Ebrahimi 2
1 Graduated of Master of Business Management, Strategic Management Subfield, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Strategic intent is considered a manifestation of ambition or obsession that something has to be accomplished, or it is a winning obsession. As the main element of strategic formulation, strategic intent make the intended strategic changes more specific and disciplined. The study population of this study is composed of the managers and the experts at Refah Kargaran Bank branches in Tehran, which are approximately 1,000 people. The two-stage cluster sampling method includes 70 branches randomly selected out of all Refah Kargaran Bank branches in TehranThe questionnaire used as a tool of this research includes 58 questions that the respondents answered using a five-level Likert scale. In this research, validity is measured using convergent validity and divergent validity, and reliability is measured using Cronbach's reliability and composite reliability. The AVE results indicate that the questionnaire and variables have good validity. The total CVR index is 0.9 for measuring content validity. The average Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all criteria is equal to 0.859, which is higher than 0.7. Furthermore, with a GOF value of 0.699, the overall model fit is considered strong. Therefore, it can be stated that the overall model fit is confirmed. There is a positive relationship between strategic intent and strategic change, considering the mediator role of strategy formulation.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Strategic Intent
Strategic Change
Strategic Formulation
Anderson BS, Covin JG and Slevin DP (2009) Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: An empirical investigation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3(3): 218–240.
Anderson BS, Eshima Y and Hornsby JS (2019) Strategic entrepreneurial behaviours: Construct and scale development. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 13(2): 199–220.
Andersson U, Forsgren M and Holm U (2002) The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal 23(11): 979–996.
Birkinshaw J and Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organisation studies. Academy of Management Perspectives 27(4): 287–298.
Bollen KA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Burgess N, Strauss K, Currie G, et al. (2015) Organisational ambidexterity and the hybrid middle manager: The case of patient safety in UK hospitals. Human Resource Management 54(S1): 87–109.
Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chen J, Miller D and Chen M-J  (2021) Top management team time horizon blending and organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization 19(2): 183–206.
Choi YR and Shepherd DA (2005) Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management 31(4): 573–596.
Colclough SN, Moen Ø, Hovd NS, et al. (2019) SME innovation orientation: Evidence from Norwegian exporting SMEs. International Small Business Journal 37(8): 780–803.
Cole RA and Mehran H (2016) What do we know about executive compensation at small privately held firms? Small Business Economics 46(2): 215–237.
Covin JG and Slevin DP (1989) Strategic management in small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal 10(1): 75–87.
Covin JG and Wales WJ (2019) Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(1): 3–18.
De Mol E, Ho VT and Pollack JM (2018) Predicting entrepreneurial burnout in a moderated mediated model of job fit. Journal of Small Business Management 56(3): 392–411.
DiVito L and Bohnsack R (2017) Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on sustainability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion firms. Journal of Business Venturing 32(5): 569–587.
Durisin B and Todorova G (2012) A study of the performativity of the ‘ambidextrous organisations’ theory: Neither lost in nor lost before translation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29(S1): 53–75.
Eggers F, Kraus S, Hughes M, et al. (2013) Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Management Decision 51(3): 524–546.
El-Awad Z, Gabrielsseon J and Politis D (2017) Entrepreneurial learning and innovation: The critical role of team-level learning for the evolution of innovation capabilities in technology-based ventures.
Feng Y, Teng D and Hao B (2019) Joint actions with large partners and small-firm ambidexterity in asymmetric alliances: The mediating role of relational identification. International Small Business Journal 37: 689–712.
Hughes, M., Hughes, P., Morgan, R. E., Hodgkinson, I. R., & Lee, Y. (2021). Strategic Entrepreneurship Behaviour and the Innovation Ambidexterity of Young Technology-based Firms in Incubators. International Small Business Journal, 39(3), 202-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620943776
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 23(3): 381–405.
Jansen JJP, Simsek Z and Cao Q (2012) Ambidexterity and performance in multi-unit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal 33(11): 1286– 1303.
Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ and Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organisational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science 52(11): 1661–1674.
Junni P, Chang Y-Y and Sarala RM (2020) Ambidextrous orientation and performance in corporate venture units: A multilevel analysis of CV units in emerging market multinationals. Long Range Planning 53(6): 101930. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101930
Junni P, Sarala RM, Taras V, et al. (2013) Organisational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives 27(4): 299–312.
Junni P, Sarala RM, Tarba SY, et al. (2015) Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organisational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management 54(S1): 1–28.
Lindell MK and Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114–121.
López-Nicolás, C., & Meroño-Cerdán, Á. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 502-509.
Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, et al. (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioural integration. Journal of Management 32(5): 646–672.
OECD (1999) Business Incubation: International Case Studies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
Paytas J and Berglund D (2004) Technology Industries and Occupations for NAICS Industry Data. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Centre for Economic Development. Available at: https://ssti.org/reportarchive/NAICS_Tech1.pdf
Tornikoski ET, Rannikko H and Heimonen TP (2017) Technology-based competitive advantages of young entrepreneurial firms: Conceptual development and empirical exploration. Journal of Small Business Management 55(2): 200–215.
Traynor K and Traynor S (2004) A comparison of marketing approaches used by high-tech firms: 1985 versus 2001. Industrial Marketing Management 33(5): 457–461.
Tukker A and Tischner U (2017) New Business for Old Europe: Product-Service Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability. London: Routledge.
Wales WJ, Covin JG and Monsen E (2020) Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multi-level conceptualisation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14(4): 639–660.
Wales WJ, Wiklund J and McKelvie A (2015) What about new entry? Examining the theorised role of new entry in the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. International Small Business Journal 33(4): 351–373.
دوره 6، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 28
تابستان 1404
صفحه 303-325

  • تاریخ دریافت 12 دی 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 28 دی 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 01 بهمن 1403