This chapter deals with the concept of competence as a main dimension of organizational effectiveness with its mysterious relation with the concept of arrogance. In fact, competences are considered a main driver of any company, but its definition remains vague. In order to explore the relationship between competence and arrogance, the authors attempted to answer the following question: How do competences valorize strategic scope dimensions? In fact, they tried to view empirically show that competences can impact the strategic scope of any business through research and development and market and resources.
TopIntroduction
Competences are an effective capacity for action. They are not a simple know-how, but also a Know-it-How, a special skill. They are in fact, strategic capacities, essential to resolve special problems in complex situations. From another side, having an inflated self-perception of power or a defense mechanism that closes people off can be seen as arrogance more than competence (Jones 2016). There is a precise evenness that should any individual in the competence look for. A blending between High Competence and High Arrogance provides quite successful people but destructive to the morale or relationship in some situations (Golson 2007 cited by Padua et al. 2010). The splitter between arrogance and self-confidence is very thin but well defined. It is like between real ability and conceit1. However, the presence of competence remains a relevant factor for today and tomorrow, it should be vocational as a combination of abilities, skills, ways of thinking, and knowledge resources (Meyer et al. 2015). Thus, this chapter is composed by two parts: (1) the business strategic scope, and (2) the competence as an ambiguous concept.
The Business Strategic Scope
This first section, “The business strategic scope”, is based on the development of a concept emanating from strategy and strategic actions that is called “the strategic scope”. This term highlights the viability and the sustainability field of any business through valuable combination of resources, activities and assets at its disposal (Zenger & Huang 2015). Corporate managers are called to establish and develop solid foundations for future success that depend primarily on actions initiated now. Therefore, managers routinely face complex decision-making scenarios. In addition, they must respond to contradictory requests from different stakeholders. As understood through direct and careful observations by excellent managers in action as well as research output by highly skilled scholars, strategic thinking is characterized by its progressive nature. Hence, “the strategic scope” could be considered as a new strategic landscape of the organizational effectiveness. The authors provided in this research work an overview on the evolution of strategic thinking to explain the reasons behind the proposal of strategic scope (SS) concept. Then they presented a summary of the definitions of the concept. Finally, they turn into identifying the concept’s main dimensions as well as its mechanisms of actions. An empirical study on Agrifood Tunisian companies will show how the concept and dimension are interrelating in an emerging economy.
Definition and Typology of Strategic Scope
Undeniably, any business strategy draws a set of objectives to achieve. These objectives may refer to the dimension, size and weight of the company’s extend or scope. Allaire and Firsiritou (1993) and Fahey (1996) noted that the strategic scope remains a major factor in understanding any company’s strategy. In fact, this concept involves the definition of the business/trade field and the place of deployment of the enterprise’s resources. Indeed, the strategic scope traces the extent on which any company could establish its competitive advantage (Houthoofd & Heene 1997). Some studies have raised a variety of concepts related to the strategic scope, which we will try to develop in the following sections.