Should Organisations Compete or Collaborate when Absorbing New External Knowledge?

Organisations possessing significant resources (Resource Based View) or knowledge, as their significant capability (Dynamic Capability View), are often unaware of their own ability to acquire new knowledge entering the enterprise (level of absorptive capacity); this unawareness can lead to reduced marketplace performance and incorrect decision making, which may result in the wastage of organisational resources, including employee knowledge. This study highlights the key differences in absorptive capacity which firms possess, in the context of resource based and dynamic capability views. Based on these differing perspectives, options are provided for companies who wish to compete or mate/merge with competitors in the market, while discussion is given on the considerations that organisations must take before adopting a suggested option

Should Organisations Compete or Collaborate when Absorbing New External Knowledge?

Organisations possessing significant resources (Resource Based View) or knowledge, as their significant capability (Dynamic Capability View), are often unaware of their own ability to acquire new knowledge entering the enterprise (level of absorptive capacity); this unawareness can lead to reduced marketplace performance and incorrect decision making, which may result in the wastage of organisational resources, including employee knowledge. This study highlights the key differences in absorptive capacity which firms possess, in the context of resource based and dynamic capability views. Based on these differing perspectives, options are provided for companies who wish to compete or mate/merge with competitors in the market, while discussion is given on the considerations that organisations must take before adopting a suggested option

subsídios para a compreensão de algumas estratégias negociais da GRH como intermediária

No binómio conceptual entre competição e cooperação algumas investigações postulam quadros estruturais para aferir como os departamentos de GRH nas organizações gerem os seus conflitos, numa lógica de cliente interno. Esses departamentos manifestam-se de acordo com as suas idiossincrasias, negociando de modo competitivo, sem descurar acções mais cooperativas que facilitam acordos. Os departamentos que actuam na proximidade dos clientes estão, frequentemente, vocacionados para a maximização dos lucros, em consonância com as necessidades dos clientes. As unidades ‘de suporte’ (tecnoestrutura) estão mais orientadas para a minimização de custos (portadoras de uma pesada herança pós-taylorista), produzindo ou comprando com eficácia, mas numa lógica de salvaguarda dos interesses dos colaboradores. O objectivo comum direcciona-se para um equilíbrio entre as expectativas do cliente e a filosofia de negócio da empresa. Este ensaio, que tem em Deutsch (2000) um impulsionador conceptual, é inspirado numa dissertação doutoral (Moreira, 2010) e visa promover o debate sobre estes dois eixos/estilos negociais na lógica da GRH. A gestão de relações profissionais por parte da GRH é uma gestão de emoções que pode activar fontes de conflitos, dado o exercício de poder que implica (Moreira, 2010). A ‘eficácia’ negocial da GRH é dependente da adaptação da(s) técnica(s) de negociação apropriada(s) à função (mais ou menos instrumental). No entanto, empiricamente, boa parte das teorias da organização concentra energias na inserção das relações conflituais num quadro sindical, ao invés de uma aposta mais evidente na GRH que, no nosso entender, se poderá revestir de uma importância significativa na (inter) mediação entre as partes.In the binomial between competition and cooperation some research postulates structural frameworks to see how HRM departments in organizations manage their conflicts, within an internal customer logic. These departments manifest themselves according to their idiosyncrasies, negotiating in a competitive way but, at the same time, without neglecting more cooperative actions that facilitate agreements. Departments that operate close to customers are often geared toward maximizing profits in line with customer needs. The ‘support’ units (technostructure) are more oriented towards cost minimization (bearers of a heavy post-Taylorist heritage), producing or buying effectively, but in a logic of safeguarding the interests of employees. The common goal is to balance the customer’s expectations with the company’s business philosophy. This essay, which has in Deutsch (2000) a conceptual booster, is inspired by a doctoral dissertation (Moreira, 2010) and aims to promote the debate on these two negotiation styles in the logic of HRM. The management of professional relations by the HRM is an emotions management that can activate sources of conflict, given the exercise of power that implies (Moreira, 2010). The ‘effectiveness’ of GRH is dependent on the adaptation of the appropriate trading technique (s) to the (more or less instrumental) function. However, empirically, much of the organization’s theories focus on the insertion of conflictual relations within a trade union framework, rather than on a more evident bet on HRM which, in our view, may be of significant importance in (inter)mediation between the parts.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio