簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
黃昉鈺 Huang, Fang-Yue |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
逆襲優勢：權力不對等下的策略回應 The Counterplay Advantage: Strategic Responses Under Power Asymmetry |
| 指導教授： |
蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin |
| 口試委員: |
蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin 李吉仁 Lee, Ji-Ren 李賢源 Lee, Shyan-Yuan 李慶芳 Lee, Ching-Fang 陳蕙芬 Chen, Hui-Fen |
| 學位類別： |
博士
Doctor |
| 系所名稱： |
商學院 - 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 Graduate Institute of Technology, Innovation and Intellectual Property Management |
| 論文出版年： | 2026 |
| 畢業學年度： | 115 |
| 語文別： | 中文 |
| 論文頁數： | 171 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 策略回應 、攻防歷程 、逆向思維 、弱勢者 、競爭優勢 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | strategic response, attack–defense process, contrarian thinking, low-power actors, competitive advantage |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：22 下載：0 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
競爭優勢研究多以市場位置、資源條件與能力差異說明企業如何勝出，卻較少說明弱勢者在強弱對峙中，如何面對封鎖、排除與反制而取得相對優勢。本研究補充策略回應文獻對權力不對等情境的說明；回應弱勢企業於劣勢下的兢爭難題。本研究以臺灣中小企業聯嘉光電為個案，採取質性研究方法，分析其導入 LED 交通號誌燈的攻防歷程。研究發現，聯嘉並未正面迎擊強勢者，而是透過三項機制取得逆襲優勢：第一，認知轉移，從限制中找出化解契機；第二，關係轉變，轉換角色並重新部署資源，使自身成為強勢者需要的合作方；第三，制度重新理解，先累積制度可採信的成果，改變制度對弱勢者價值的判斷。理論上，本研究將策略回應界定為攻防往返的歷程，說明強勢者如何施加制約，弱勢者又如何透過認知轉移、關係轉變與制度重新理解，逐步由被排除者轉為被需要者。實務上，本研究提醒弱勢企業，不必複製強勢者的成功模式，而應承擔對方不願處理、未曾想到或無法完成的工作。弱勢者的策略回應，不在正面強攻，而在讓自身成為強勢者與制度不能輕易省略的一方。弱勢者若能讓自身成為強勢者與制度無法輕易省略的參與者，便能在不對稱競爭中取得相對性的逆襲優勢。
Research on competitive advantage has largely explained firm success through market position, resource endowments, and capability differences. Less is known about how disadvantaged firms respond strategically when powerful actors restrict access, exclude participation, or counter their initiatives. This study addresses this gap by examining strategic response under power asymmetry. Drawing on a qualitative case study of Excellence Optoelectronics, a Taiwanese small and medium-sized enterprise that introduced LED traffic signals, we analyze a sequence of attack–defense interactions between the focal firm, incumbent actors, and institutional authorities. The findings show that Excellence did not confront powerful actors head-on. Instead, it gained a reversal advantage through three mechanisms. First, through cognitive shift, the firm treated constraints not as barriers to compliance but as clues to unresolved institutional problems. Second, through relational change, it repositioned itself and redeployed resources so that powerful actors began to need its participation. Third, through institutional reorientation, it accumulated credible evidence before formal recognition, gradually changing how institutions assessed its value. Theoretically, this study reconceptualizes strategic response as an iterative attack–defense process rather than a discrete action choice. It explains how disadvantaged firms may move from exclusion to indispensability by altering how problems are understood, how relationships are organized, and how institutional value is judged. Practically, the study suggests that low-power actor need not imitate high-power actors. Their strategic task is to undertake work that high-power actors avoid, overlook, or cannot complete, thereby becoming difficult to exclude. When low-power actors make their participation difficult for high-power actors to dispense with, they can develop a relative advantage in asymmetric competition.
聲明頁 i
致 謝 ii
中文摘要 v
英文摘要 vi
目錄 vii
表目錄 xii
圖目錄 xii
壹、緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
一、實務動機 1
（一）弱勢者難以回應強勢者 1
（二）策略回應，不一定具有策略性 3
（三）優勢非必由競爭而取得 4
二、理論動機 5
（一）釐清攻擊—防守的動態歷程 6
（二）探索回應中的策略性 7
（三）探索相對競爭優勢 8
第二節 研究目的 10
一、分析攻防過程 10
二、分析策略回應中的實踐 11
三、分析相對優勢 13
第三節 預期效益 14
一、預期理論貢獻 15
（一）策略回應的互動性 15
（二）回應中的策略思維 16
（三）逆襲的相對優勢 18
二、預期實務啟發 19
（一）辨正策略回應的迷思 20
（二）形成逆襲回應的行動原則 21
（三）理解逆襲優勢的形成邏輯 22
貳、文獻回顧 24
第一節 競爭優勢定義 24
一、策略定位觀點 24
二、資源論觀點 27
三、動態能力觀點 30
四、弱勢者的競爭優勢 31
第二節 勢均力敵的策略回應 32
一、行動導向的策略回應 33
（一）參照型回應：觀察對手、判定時機 33
（二）配置型回應：調動資源、籌劃行動 35
二、認知導向的策略回應 37
（一）認知決定回應 37
（二）身份認同影響策略回應 38
（三）符號操作與注意力的角色 40
三、制度導向的策略回應 42
（一）制度失效時：以行動補制度 42
（二）制度變動時：以解釋改制度 45
第三節 權力不對等的策略回應 47
一、機構制約下的受理策略 47
（一）回應選項：制度壓力下的策略選擇 47
（二）形式調整：以熟悉樣貌取得受理 48
（三）時機安排：在不確定中保留行動彈性 48
二、權力不對等下的角色轉位 49
（一）場域轉換：避開強者設定的戰場 50
（二）價值重述：讓邊緣角色被重新理解 50
（三）依賴累積：由受控位置走向不可或缺 51
第四節 研究缺口——逆襲回應 53
一、釐清逆襲回應 53
（一）強弱勢的定位 53
（二）逆襲優勢的理論邊界 55
（三）逆襲回應的權力場域 57
二、策略回應：攻擊與防禦的策略觀 60
（一）理解攻防之間的互動 60
（二）策略回應中弱勢者的實踐 62
（三）策略回應中的策略思維 63
參、研究方法 67
第一節 研究方法與分析觀點 67
一、策略回應的實踐 67
二、強勢者與弱勢者 68
三、攻擊與防禦 68
第二節 理論取樣 69
一、權勢不對等 69
二、資源相對性 69
三、策略回應內的逆襲 70
第三節 資料蒐集 71
一、資料蒐集過程 72
二、研究訪談 73
三、內部人身分與反身性設計 75
第四節 分析架構與步驟 77
一、分析單位：攻防回合 77
二、攻防回合的分析架構 79
三、分析架構：逆向策略回應的分析觀點 81
四、資料分析程序 83
肆、研究發現 87
第一節 光電產業的機構力 87
一、案例背景：從邊緣突圍 87
二、競爭情境：高度穩定的制度場域 88
第二節 階段一：制度外示範期 90
一、強勢者之攻擊：資格門檻型攻擊（1996—1998） 90
二、弱勢者之防禦：風險轉移型防禦（1996—1998） 92
第三節 階段二：知識轉譯期 96
一、強勢者之攻擊：知識壟斷型攻擊（1997—2003） 96
二、弱勢者之防禦：認知轉位型防禦（1997—2003） 100
第四節 階段三：利益共生期 103
一、強勢者之攻擊：利益防衛型攻擊（2000—2005） 103
二、弱勢者之防禦：利益重組型防禦（2000—2005） 107
第五節 階段四：制度嵌入期 110
一、強勢者之攻擊：治理延宕型攻擊（2004—2007） 110
二、弱勢者之防禦：制度嵌入型防禦（2004—2007） 114
第六節 階段五：合法性回饋期 117
一、強勢者之攻擊：壟斷型攻擊（2002—2008） 117
二、弱勢者之防禦：回饋型防禦（2002—2008） 121
第七節 策略回應中的逆向思維 124
一、認知轉移：由制度限制到機會辨識 124
（一）原有狀態：制度先行界定機會是否存在 124
（二）一般邏輯：在既有條件下等待、配合與證明 125
（三）逆思邏輯：由拒絕表象追查制度欠缺的條件 126
（四）策略回應結果：由等待機會轉為形成機會 127
二、關係轉變：由單向依賴到互補互賴 128
（一）原有狀態：弱勢者位於受支配位置，資源彼此分離 129
（二）一般邏輯：爭取權力、擴張資源或排除對手 129
（三）逆思邏輯：承擔未竟工作，重新安排彼此資源 130
（四）策略回應結果：由單向依賴轉為互補互賴 131
三、制度重新理解：由制度審查到制度依賴 132
（一）原有狀態：制度將弱勢者視為待審查與可排除對象 132
（二）一般邏輯：等待制度承認、爭取政策支持或累積績效 133
（三）逆思邏輯：持續提供制度無法自行完成的功能 134
（四）策略回應結果：制度由審查弱勢者轉向依賴弱勢者 135
伍、討論 139
第一節 學術貢獻 139
一、策略回應由「行動選擇」轉為「攻防回合」 139
二、闡述弱轉強的過程 142
三，逆向思維的策略回應 145
第二節 實務啟示 149
一、策略回應的迷思 150
二、逆襲回應的實務原則 152
三、逆襲優勢的邏輯 155
四、逆襲優勢的理論適用性與邊界 159
第三節 研究限制與未來方向 160
一、分析策略回應中的實踐過程 160
二、探索策略回應中的思維框架突破 162
三、探索逆襲優勢 163
陸、結論 165
參考文獻 167
一、中文文獻 167
二、英文文獻 167
一、中文文獻
李吉仁，2024，《轉型再成長：策略架構與執行力》，台北：天下雜誌股份有限公司。
黃昉鈺，2023，「形塑競爭優勢：聯嘉評估策略轉型決策」，國立政治大學商管個案中心：13-AC-01。
陳思華，2000，《策略九說：策略思考的本質》，台北：臉譜文化出版社。
陳蕙芬，2015，「柔韌設計：化機構阻力為創新助力」，《中山管理評論》，第1期，第23卷，13-55頁。
蕭瑞麟，2020，(第五版)《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟、徐嘉黛，2020，「境隨心轉：服務隨創中的認知轉移與資源轉換」，《組織與管理》，第2期，第13卷，001-051頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，323-367頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠，2017，「逆強論：隨創式的資源建構過程」，《台大管理論叢》，第4期，第27卷，43-74頁。
二、英文文獻
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. 2009. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Arrigo, U., Beccarello, M., & Di Foggia, G. 2023. Strategic response of European Airlines to market dynamics: A comparative analysis, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 13: 1-14.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Barr, P. S., & Huff, A. S. 1997. Seeing isn't believing: Understanidng diversity in the time of strategic response. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3): 337-370.
Barreto, I. 2025. Navigating uncharted waters: How executives originate high-quality ideas for strategic responses to unprecedented shocks. Academy of Management Review, 50(2): 366-391.
Baum, J. A., & Korn, H. J. 1996. Competitive dynamics of interfirm rivalry. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 255-291.
Boland Jr, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. 1995. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4): 350-372.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3): 477-508.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2): 167-199.
Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. C. 1995. Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal., 38(2): 453-482.
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. 1994. Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-valence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85-102.
Cho, D.-S., Kim, D.-J., & Rhee, D. K. 1998. Latecomer strategies: Evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea. Organization Science, 9(4): 489-505.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. 1995. Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2): 233-257.
Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R. M., & Stern, S. 2000. Untangling the origins of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11): 1123-1145.
Cole, B. M., & Chandler, D. 2019. A model of competitive impression management: Edison versus Westinghouse in the War of the Currents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4): 1020-1063.
Coyne, K. P., & Horn, J. 2009. Predicting your competitor's reaction. Harvard Business Review, 87(4): 90-97.
D'Aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. 2000. The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 679-703.
D'Aveni, R. A. 2007. Mapping your competitive position. Harvard Business Review, 85(11): 110-120.
DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment.: 3-21: Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review, 48: 147-160.
Drees, J., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. 2013. Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39: 1666–1698.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. 1999. Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 76-86.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105.
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31-41.
Gao, H., Tieying, Y. U., & Cannella Jr, A. A. 2017. Understanding word responses in competitve dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 42(1): 129-144.
Geiger, D., Danner-Schröder, A., & Kremser, W. 2021. Getting ahead of time—Performing temporal boundaries to coordinate routines under temporal uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1): 220-264.
Giachetti, C., & Lampel, J. 2010. Keeping both eyes on the competition: Strategic adjustment to multiple targets in the UK mobile phone industry. Strategic Organization, 8(4): 347-376.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.-J. 2011. Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5): 650-663.
Greer, C. R., & Ireland, T. C. 1992. Organizational and financial correlates of contrarian human resource investment strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5): 956-984.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 659-684.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-514.
Hsieh, K.-Y., & Vermeulen, F. 2014. The structure of competition: How competition between one's rivals influences imitative market entry. Organization Science, 25(1): 299-319.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Whittington, R. 2008. A strategy-as-practice approach to strategy research and education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 282-286.
Kim, S., & Schifeling, T. 2022. Good Corp, Bad Corp, and the rise of B Corps: How market incumbents' diverse responses reinvigorate challengers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3): 674-720.
Kozhikode, R. K. 2016. Dormancy as a strategic response to detrimental public policy. Organization Science, 27(1): 189-206.
Langlois, R. N., & Steinmueller, W. E. 2000. Strategy and circumstance: The response of American firms to Japanese competition in semiconductors, 1980-1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11): 1163-1173.
Mack, D. Z., Cho, T. S., & Yi, A. C. 2024. Attentional engagement and strategic responses to discontinuous environmental change: Evidence from the US banking industry. Strategic Organization, 22(1): 49-90.
Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. 1991. Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2): 281–305.
Martin-Rios, C., & Parga-Dans, E. 2016. Service response to economic decline: Innovation actions for achieving strategic renewal. Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 2890-2900.
Morgan, A., & Barden, M. 2015. A beautiful constraint: How to transform your limitations into advantages, and why it’s everyone’s business. London: Wiley.
Nalebuff, B., & Brandenburger, A. M. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179.
Operti, E., Sgourev, S. V., & Lampronti, S. Y. 2021. Choose your enemies well: Mapping, managing, and leveraging Rivalry. California Management Review, 64(1): 29-46.
Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191.
Pettus, M., Kor, Y., Mahoney, J., & Michael, S. 2017. Sequencing and timing of strategic responses after industry disruption: Evidence from post-deregulation competition in the US railroad industry. Strategic Organization, 16(4): 147612701774350.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competition. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1987. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review(May-June): 43-59.
Porter, M. E. 2008. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1): 78-93.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1406-1433.
Powell, T. 2001. Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9): 875-888.
Raffaelli, R., & Noe, R. 2025. Organizational emplacement as a response to digital threat: The novel resurgence of independent bookstores. Administrative Science Quarterly, Forthcoming.
Regnér, P. 2008. Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4): 565-588.
Sanasi, S., & Ghezzi, A. 2022. Pivots as strategic responses to crises: Evidence from Italian companies navigating Covid-19. Strategic Organization, 22(3): 495–529.
Schneider, S. C., & de Meyer, A. 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4): 307.
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Seidl, D., Ma, S., & Splitter, V. 2024. What makes activities strategic: Toward a new framework for strategy-as-practice research. Strategic Management Journal, 45(12): 2395-2419.
Shu, E., & Lewin, A. Y. 2016. A resource dependence perspective on low-power actors shaping their regulatory environment: The case of Honda. Organization Studies, 38(8): 1039-1058.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 273-292.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. 1984. Influence strategy, perspective-taking, and relationships between high- and low-power individuals in cooperative and competitive contexts. Journal of Psychology, 116(2): 187–202.
Vermeulen, P. A. M., Zietsma, C., Greenwood, R., & Langley, A. 2016. Strategic responses to institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14(4): 277-286.
Weber, C. E., Kortkamp, C., Maurer, I., & Hummers, E. 2022. Boundary work in response to professionals’ contextual constraints: Micro-strategies in interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies, 43(9): 1453–1477.
Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. 2007. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 70-105.
