Abdullah Muhammad Dhrubo, Samuel Teshale Lemago, Awais Ahmed Brohi, Osman Hafid Erdem
{"title":"Re-conceptualizing Resources: An Ontological Re-evaluation of the Resource-based View","authors":"Abdullah Muhammad Dhrubo, Samuel Teshale Lemago, Awais Ahmed Brohi, Osman Hafid Erdem","doi":"10.1007/s40926-024-00313-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Resource-Based View (RBV) has been instrumental in shaping strategic management theory by underscoring the significance of a firm's unique, valuable, and hard-to-copy internal resources in securing competitive advantage. However, the conventional RBV framework, with its emphasis on static, possession-oriented resource conceptualization, falls short in addressing the dynamic and relational nature of resources in contemporary business environments. This paper aims to bridge this gap by introducing a processual perspective to the RBV, grounded in process philosophy. In this study, we delve into the philosophical underpinnings of RBV, critiquing its static ontological assumptions and proposing a shift towards a more dynamic and relational ontology. Drawing from the insights of process philosophers such as Whitehead and Bergson, and differentiating between 'strong' and 'weak' process views, we reconceptualize resources not as static entities, but as dynamic elements continually constituted and reconstituted within networks of relationships and ongoing organizational processes. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of resources, recognizing their evolutionary and interconnected nature. Our methodology involves a rigorous theoretical analysis and synthesis of existing RBV literature, coupled with philosophical inquiry to construct a novel framework for resource conceptualization. We demonstrate how this reconceptualization offers fresh insights into strategic management, particularly in formulating strategies that leverage the dynamic interplay of resources and in understanding the boundary between internal and external resources. This paper contributes to the RBV literature by offering a process-oriented perspective that aligns more closely with the complexities of modern strategic landscapes. By challenging and extending traditional RBV assumptions, we pave the way for future empirical research and theoretical development in strategic management, highlighting the significance of process philosophy in enriching management theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":54136,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-024-00313-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Resource-Based View (RBV) has been instrumental in shaping strategic management theory by underscoring the significance of a firm's unique, valuable, and hard-to-copy internal resources in securing competitive advantage. However, the conventional RBV framework, with its emphasis on static, possession-oriented resource conceptualization, falls short in addressing the dynamic and relational nature of resources in contemporary business environments. This paper aims to bridge this gap by introducing a processual perspective to the RBV, grounded in process philosophy. In this study, we delve into the philosophical underpinnings of RBV, critiquing its static ontological assumptions and proposing a shift towards a more dynamic and relational ontology. Drawing from the insights of process philosophers such as Whitehead and Bergson, and differentiating between 'strong' and 'weak' process views, we reconceptualize resources not as static entities, but as dynamic elements continually constituted and reconstituted within networks of relationships and ongoing organizational processes. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of resources, recognizing their evolutionary and interconnected nature. Our methodology involves a rigorous theoretical analysis and synthesis of existing RBV literature, coupled with philosophical inquiry to construct a novel framework for resource conceptualization. We demonstrate how this reconceptualization offers fresh insights into strategic management, particularly in formulating strategies that leverage the dynamic interplay of resources and in understanding the boundary between internal and external resources. This paper contributes to the RBV literature by offering a process-oriented perspective that aligns more closely with the complexities of modern strategic landscapes. By challenging and extending traditional RBV assumptions, we pave the way for future empirical research and theoretical development in strategic management, highlighting the significance of process philosophy in enriching management theories.
期刊介绍:
Philosophy of Management addresses all aspects of the philosophical foundations of management in theory and practice, including business ethics, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics and politics. The application of philosophical disciplines to issues facing managers are increasingly recognized to include organizational purpose, performance measurement, the status of ethics, employee privacy, and limitations on the right to manage. Philosophy of Management is an independent, refereed forum that focuses on these central philosophical issues of management in theory and practice. The journal is open to contributions from all philosophical schools and traditions. Since 2001 the journal has published three issues per year, each focused on a particular topic. Published contributors include René ten Bos, Ghislain Deslandes, Juan Fontrodona, Michelle Greenwood, Jeremy Moon, Geoff Moore, Duncan Pritchard, and Duane Windsor. This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure.