Goce Andrevski, Danny Miller, Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, Walter Ferrier
{"title":"竞争理由:竞争行为的表象之下。","authors":"Goce Andrevski, Danny Miller, Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, Walter Ferrier","doi":"10.1177/01492063211040555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Competitive dynamics research has focused on studying whether rivals are able and likely to carry out competitive actions, typically by examining indirect reasons such as characteristics of the actions themselves, the firms involved, or the competitive context. We explore why rivals initiate a specific competitive action at a particular time and situation. Drawing from the philosophy of action literature, we introduce the concept of competitive rationales to examine the primary reasons that cause tactical actions. Given the rapid exchanges characterizing tactical competitive dynamics, we conducted an inductive, multicase study to explore the reasons behind over 800 discrete tactical decisions carried out by 9 professional basketball coaches during 15 basketball games. To garner insight, we develop a conceptual framework revealing their types and scope. Even during intense head-to-head rivalry, most rationales were not rivalrous but were instead organizational-to optimize resource use, strategic consistency, and reputation-or social-to manage relationships. Moreover, the three main types of rationales varied in scope, extending beyond immediate competitive situations and rivals to address longer term, strategic outcomes, and assorted stakeholders. Thus, our analysis reveals these rationales to be complex and potentially difficult for rivals to decipher. It also recasts each component of the dominant awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) model of rivalry, suggesting that awareness is challenged by subtle rationales, motivation drives not only action but also forbearance, and capability is both a requirement and product of action.</p>","PeriodicalId":48295,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Development Studies","volume":"33 1","pages":"2286-2317"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039389/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competitive Rationales: Beneath the Surface of Competitive Behavior.\",\"authors\":\"Goce Andrevski, Danny Miller, Isabelle Le Breton-Miller, Walter Ferrier\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01492063211040555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Competitive dynamics research has focused on studying whether rivals are able and likely to carry out competitive actions, typically by examining indirect reasons such as characteristics of the actions themselves, the firms involved, or the competitive context. We explore why rivals initiate a specific competitive action at a particular time and situation. Drawing from the philosophy of action literature, we introduce the concept of competitive rationales to examine the primary reasons that cause tactical actions. Given the rapid exchanges characterizing tactical competitive dynamics, we conducted an inductive, multicase study to explore the reasons behind over 800 discrete tactical decisions carried out by 9 professional basketball coaches during 15 basketball games. To garner insight, we develop a conceptual framework revealing their types and scope. Even during intense head-to-head rivalry, most rationales were not rivalrous but were instead organizational-to optimize resource use, strategic consistency, and reputation-or social-to manage relationships. Moreover, the three main types of rationales varied in scope, extending beyond immediate competitive situations and rivals to address longer term, strategic outcomes, and assorted stakeholders. Thus, our analysis reveals these rationales to be complex and potentially difficult for rivals to decipher. It also recasts each component of the dominant awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) model of rivalry, suggesting that awareness is challenged by subtle rationales, motivation drives not only action but also forbearance, and capability is both a requirement and product of action.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Development Studies\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"2286-2317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039389/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Development Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211040555\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Development Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211040555","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Competitive Rationales: Beneath the Surface of Competitive Behavior.
Competitive dynamics research has focused on studying whether rivals are able and likely to carry out competitive actions, typically by examining indirect reasons such as characteristics of the actions themselves, the firms involved, or the competitive context. We explore why rivals initiate a specific competitive action at a particular time and situation. Drawing from the philosophy of action literature, we introduce the concept of competitive rationales to examine the primary reasons that cause tactical actions. Given the rapid exchanges characterizing tactical competitive dynamics, we conducted an inductive, multicase study to explore the reasons behind over 800 discrete tactical decisions carried out by 9 professional basketball coaches during 15 basketball games. To garner insight, we develop a conceptual framework revealing their types and scope. Even during intense head-to-head rivalry, most rationales were not rivalrous but were instead organizational-to optimize resource use, strategic consistency, and reputation-or social-to manage relationships. Moreover, the three main types of rationales varied in scope, extending beyond immediate competitive situations and rivals to address longer term, strategic outcomes, and assorted stakeholders. Thus, our analysis reveals these rationales to be complex and potentially difficult for rivals to decipher. It also recasts each component of the dominant awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) model of rivalry, suggesting that awareness is challenged by subtle rationales, motivation drives not only action but also forbearance, and capability is both a requirement and product of action.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Development Studies was the first and is one of the best known international journals in the area of development studies. Since its foundation in 1964, it has published many seminal articles on development and opened up new areas of debate. Priority is given to papers which are: • relevant to important current research in development policy, theory and analysis • make a novel and significant contribution to the field • provide critical tests, based on empirical work, of alternative theories, perspectives or schools of thought We invite articles that are interdisciplinary or focused on particular disciplines (e.g. economics, politics, geography, sociology or anthropology), with an expectation that all work is accessible to readers across the social sciences. The editors also welcome surveys of the literature in important fields of development policy. All research articles in this journal undergo rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous peer review. Given the high level of submissions, a majority of submissions are rejected quickly with reasons.