A Comparative Evaluation of Competing Frameworks for Strategic Decision-Making in Organizational Resilience

Abstract

In an increasingly volatile global landscape, organizations face unprecedented challenges necessitating adaptive strategies for resilience. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to investigate the effectiveness of three strategic decision-making frameworks: the Contingency Theory, the Resource-Based View, and the Dynamic Capabilities Model. A sample of 150 middle to senior managers from various sectors was subjected to a structured questionnaire alongside in-depth case studies. Our findings reveal that the Dynamic Capabilities Model significantly outperforms the other frameworks in fostering organizational agility and responsiveness, evidenced by a 23% improvement in decision-making efficiency and a statistically significant p-value of <0.01. This research contributes to the discourse on strategic management by providing empirical insights that challenge traditional approaches, offering a nuanced understanding of how organizations can better navigate complexity and uncertainty. The implications for both theory and practice are profound, underscoring the necessity for a paradigm shift in strategic management education and implementation.