Rethinking Authority and Legitimacy in Strategy: A Perspective from an Emerging Economy

Abstract

The field of strategic management (SM) has presumed that the relationship between the state and market is unproblematic and that the role of the state should be seen solely within the context of regulation. Hence, the authority of CEOs within multinational corporations depends on the construction of its legitimate and sole validity and also on the delegitimation of other types of strategists-namely, government strategists. This paper emphasizes the territorialinternational dimension of authority and legitimacy to argue that the SM literature delegitimates the authority of government strategists. The paper suggests that SM in Brazil can be reorientated to help restore the legitimate authority of government strategists and challenge the sole privileging of strategists within big corporations. Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JEL Classification: M10Keywords: legitimate authority, strategic management, emerging economies, government, critical perspective Résumé En gestion stratégique (SM), on présuppose que la relation entre l'État et le marché n'est pas problématique et que l'État ne doit jouer qu'un rôle de régulateur. Il s'en suit que dans les sociétés multinationales, l'autorité des PDG dépend de la construction de sa seule et légitime validité et de la délegitimisation des autres types de stratèges, notamment les stratèges gouvernementaux. La présente étude met en évidence la dimension territoriale-internationale de l'autorité et de la légitimité pour montrer que la littérature sur la gestion stratégique délégitimise l'autorité des stratèges gouvernementaux. L'article suggère qu'au Brésil, la gestion stratégique peut être réorientée pour contribuer à la restauration de l'autorité légitime des stratèges gouvernementaux et remettre en cause le privilège des stratèges des grandes sociétés.

Algocracia: Uma análise crítica sobre a gestão mediada por algoritmos

“…The exclusive marketing orientation perceived on capitalism kept organizations away from critical analysis of neoliberalism, technologies, and, above all, discussions about the developments arising from the intersection of these two phenomena (Faria, 2015;Langley & Leyshon, 2016). Contrary to this dominant logic, CMS seeks to denounce how organizations, their managers, and instruments mainly serve the imperatives of profit and power, camouflaging such motivations in a discourse about the search for efficiency (Alvesson & Willmott, 2003;Alvesson & Deetz, 1999;Ajnesh Prasad & Mills, 2010;Faria, 2009;Davel & Alcadipani, 2003).…”

Introduction: Critical Approaches to Comparative Studies in Organizations: From Current Management Knowledge to Emerging Agendas

“…The third article of the issue is the last to address management knowledge and provides some important theoretical insights. In their paper, Faria and Wensley () critically analyze strategic management —a conventional approach usually recognized as an exclusive terrain of corporations and a specific function of CEOs; this literature provides the necessary knowledge to manage organization within a market‐oriented regime. The authors demonstrate that the basic assumptions of this kind of knowledge, sustained in the neoliberal creed (Ibarra‐Colado, , p. 38), imply a specific conception of the state that removes its essence as a political institution and replaces it with a technical profile related to a regulatory function.…”

Agência em estratégia: conectando prática social e codeterminação

“…Ao recobrar a discussão sobre poder e política em estratégia, a atenção dos estudos voltou-se para outros atores e grupos internos que possuem poderes para influenciar politicamente a formação das estratégias em grandes organizações (BARRY; ELMES, 1997;BURGELMAN, 1983;CHAKRAVARTHY;WHITE, 2002;FLOYD;LANE, 2000). A escolha dentre possíveis estratégias envolve o uso de poder por diferentes agentes ao longo de processos de interação em diferentes níveis.…”