战略、意向性和成功:解释战略行动的四个逻辑

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/26317877231186436
Robert Cheng Huat Chia, R. Holt
{"title":"战略、意向性和成功:解释战略行动的四个逻辑","authors":"Robert Cheng Huat Chia, R. Holt","doi":"10.1177/26317877231186436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Strategic success is usually associated with having deliberate intentions, prior stated goals and a comprehensively formulated plan for effective execution. This way of thinking is driven by a means–ends logic and underpinned by the cognitivist assumption that conscious thought and consequential reasoning drive effective action: such privileging of thought over action is endemic in strategic theorizing. Our purpose in this paper is to demonstrate the plausibility of other, pre-cognitive logics of strategic action and ‘intention’ as alternative explanatory bases for strategic success. We identify three such logics and their associated forms of intentionality. A ‘logic of practices’ views collectively shared habitus rather than conscious cognition/deliberate intention as the basis of effective strategic action. A ‘logic of situation’ emphasizes how situational momentum, tendencies and affordances themselves contain pre-cognitive ‘in-tensional’ impulses that actively elicit appropriate strategic responses. Finally, a ‘logic of potential’ associated with what Friedrich Nietzsche termed ‘will to power’. It is with this fourth logic, we suggest, that strategic intention becomes most effective. In will to power, strategy entails the relentless expanding of degrees of freedom from environmental constraints without presuming cognitive separation from it.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategy, Intentionality and Success: Four Logics for Explaining Strategic Action\",\"authors\":\"Robert Cheng Huat Chia, R. Holt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317877231186436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Strategic success is usually associated with having deliberate intentions, prior stated goals and a comprehensively formulated plan for effective execution. This way of thinking is driven by a means–ends logic and underpinned by the cognitivist assumption that conscious thought and consequential reasoning drive effective action: such privileging of thought over action is endemic in strategic theorizing. Our purpose in this paper is to demonstrate the plausibility of other, pre-cognitive logics of strategic action and ‘intention’ as alternative explanatory bases for strategic success. We identify three such logics and their associated forms of intentionality. A ‘logic of practices’ views collectively shared habitus rather than conscious cognition/deliberate intention as the basis of effective strategic action. A ‘logic of situation’ emphasizes how situational momentum, tendencies and affordances themselves contain pre-cognitive ‘in-tensional’ impulses that actively elicit appropriate strategic responses. Finally, a ‘logic of potential’ associated with what Friedrich Nietzsche termed ‘will to power’. It is with this fourth logic, we suggest, that strategic intention becomes most effective. In will to power, strategy entails the relentless expanding of degrees of freedom from environmental constraints without presuming cognitive separation from it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231186436\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231186436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

战略成功通常与深思熟虑的意图、事先确定的目标和全面制定的有效执行计划有关。这种思维方式是由一种手段-目的逻辑驱动的,并以认知主义假设为基础,即有意识的思考和结果推理驱动有效的行动:这种思想高于行动的特权在战略理论化中是特有的。我们在本文中的目的是证明战略行动和“意图”的其他前认知逻辑作为战略成功的替代解释基础的合理性。我们确定了三种这样的逻辑和它们相关的意向性形式。“实践逻辑”将集体共有的习惯视为有效战略行动的基础,而不是有意识的认知/刻意的意图。“情境逻辑”强调情境动量、倾向和启示本身如何包含主动引出适当战略反应的前认知“紧张”冲动。最后,“潜力逻辑”与弗里德里希·尼采所说的“权力意志”有关。我们认为,正是有了这第四种逻辑,战略意图才会变得最有效。在权力意志中,战略要求不断扩大不受环境约束的自由程度,而不假定与环境的认知分离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Strategy, Intentionality and Success: Four Logics for Explaining Strategic Action
Strategic success is usually associated with having deliberate intentions, prior stated goals and a comprehensively formulated plan for effective execution. This way of thinking is driven by a means–ends logic and underpinned by the cognitivist assumption that conscious thought and consequential reasoning drive effective action: such privileging of thought over action is endemic in strategic theorizing. Our purpose in this paper is to demonstrate the plausibility of other, pre-cognitive logics of strategic action and ‘intention’ as alternative explanatory bases for strategic success. We identify three such logics and their associated forms of intentionality. A ‘logic of practices’ views collectively shared habitus rather than conscious cognition/deliberate intention as the basis of effective strategic action. A ‘logic of situation’ emphasizes how situational momentum, tendencies and affordances themselves contain pre-cognitive ‘in-tensional’ impulses that actively elicit appropriate strategic responses. Finally, a ‘logic of potential’ associated with what Friedrich Nietzsche termed ‘will to power’. It is with this fourth logic, we suggest, that strategic intention becomes most effective. In will to power, strategy entails the relentless expanding of degrees of freedom from environmental constraints without presuming cognitive separation from it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1