Towards achieving a sustainable competitive advantage through strategic supremacy

Abstract

Background

This study employs a quantitative research methodology to investigate the intricate connections between strategic supremacy and a sustainable competitive advantage within Zain Telecommunications Company. Quantitative research is preferred because it offers significant insights into organizational processes and can measure the effects of variables and empirically investigate relationships between them.

Objective

This study investigates the relationship between strategic supremacy and sustainable competitive advantage.

Methodology

This study was a quantitative study, and a survey strategy was used to collect data from 170 respondents, and data collected from a systematic random sample. Inferential and descriptive statistics were produced using Smart-PLS.

Findings

The study highlights the significance of stakeholder engagement, network management, and innovation by showing how the sphere of influence and competitive compression boost competitive advantage. However the absence of a statistically significant impact of competitive configuration on the organizations CASA indicates that its influence is probably highly contextual or influenced by other organizational or environmental factors.

Implications

By outlining the main forces behind SCA and pointing out areas that need more research this study advances the field of strategic management. In order to survive and prosper in ever-changing competitive environments firms must ensure strategic alignment cultivate strong stakeholder relationships.

Keywords

strategic supremacy sphere of influence competitive configuration competitive compression and competitive advantage

Introduction

Today’s organizations face more difficult challenges in their natural and business environments which are characterized by extreme volatility and novel wide-ranging impacts.¹ Effective management is crucial to a company survival and success in a world of fierce competition and expanding globalization.² These intricate problems highlight the importance and connections between various aspects of the company and the processes that support its strategic initiatives to gain a competitive edge. Recently, entrepreneurs have had to continuously develop new strategies and tactics to outperform their competitors in their industries due to the increased competition in the business world.³ A company gains a competitive advantage when it makes strategic choices to capitalize on market opportunities.⁴ Therefore, since rare non-imitative valuable and irreplaceable resources or capabilities are the source of an organization’s competitive advantages businesses must integrate internal and external resources.⁵

Most business organizations seek to achieve success in their operations and activities, and constantly strive to achieve superiority and control over markets by extending their influence and strengthening their dominance over competitors, by adopting a relatively new concept, which is known as strategic supremacy.⁵ A technique known as strategic supremacy reveals an organizations purpose actions and future objectives.⁶ Planning organizing coordinating and controlling the work that needs to be done to move the organization to the desired position are all examples of fundamental management functions that are not rendered obsolete by this unique management style.⁷ By providing value to customers and establishing a long-lasting competitive advantage all businesses aim to dominate the market.⁸ In order to reflect the organizations competitive advantages from unique valuable non-replicable and irreplaceable resources or capabilities in the production and marketing process businesses must integrate internal and external resources.⁹ The fierce competition between public and private organizations particularly in the telecommunications sector is one of the biggest challenges facing business organizations today due to the rapid changes. This has forced them to find creative ways to stay competitive and continue to be successful.¹⁰

Meanwhile, a large body of literature focused on strategic supremacy and sustainable competitive advantage (SCA). Many studies have inquired into the relationship between strategic supremacy and organizational immunity, absorptive capacity and leadership behavior. However, although there were many studies conducted on SCA, still, there were no studies published assessing the effect of strategic supremacy on SCA in telecommunication companies in Jordan. The present research will endeavor to relate strategic supremacy, through sphere of influence, competitive configuration and competitive compression, to SCA in telecommunication companies in Jordan. Dimensions of strategic supremacy allow management to build competitive positions and lead the market that likely has the greatest impact on companies that seek to achieve SCA. As such, this will be the first research investigating the relationship between strategic supremacy and SCA. But the issues go deeper than just a dearth of studies. Evidently, majority of the studies conducted in government sectors and the outputs developed cannot be generalized to all sectors. These research gaps that the study intends to fill. As such, the output that this study will develop is a guide for companies intended to become a market leader and achieve competitive advantage for a long time. The output will guide telecommunications companies in providing valuable, rare and non-imitated product and services and finally achieving SCA.

The structure of this paper is as follows: the hypotheses are outlined in section two which also contains a thorough literature review. The research methodology used in this study is covered in section three. A descriptive-analytical method for analyzing the data and findings is presented in section four. In addition to acknowledging the study limitations, Section 5 presents the findings and suggests possible theoretical and practical ramifications. This study attempts to fill this important gap by analyzing how the elements of strategic supremacy—sphere of influence, competitive configuration, and competitive compression—contribute to sustainable competitive advantage in Jordan’s telecommunications sector. In doing so, it demonstrates the theoretical and practical importance of strategic supremacy as a means for organizations to develop rare, valuable, and inimitable strategic capabilities in a competitive environment.

The study pivotal contribution lies in its exploration of the role of strategic supremacy in achieving sustainable advantage, strategic supremacy characterized by providing a unified view of the strategies that the organization follow in dynamic environments. This study delves into strategic supremacy and its dimensions, which are sphere of influence, competitive configuration and competitive compression and how it best applies to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. In essence, this research bridges theoretical underpinning with pragmatic applications, illustrating how organizations can achieve sustainable competitive advantage through strategic supremacy. The insights gleaned from this study possess the potential to guide companies toward achieve a distinctive and unique position and therefore achieve competitive advantage.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

According to Abazeed,¹¹ organizations are subject to a variety of competitive pressures some of which may not be pertinent to the industry. As a result, they must be prepared to defend their market share against attempts by third parties to encroach on their territory, which could result in a reduction of their share or the acquisition of their market share and subsequent exit from the market. The business may have created a number of advantages by optimizing all internal resource components after examining the industry structure based on external factors.³ By integrating value chain activities in a way that sets them apart from their competitors companies can develop competitive internal capabilities which is their main competency.¹² Being flexible is a good way to maintain a competitive edge in a business environment that is always changing. In addition to helping businesses thrive in a shifting market the capacity to swiftly and effectively adjust will enable them to take the initiative and take the lead when new developments arise.¹³ One way to describe strategic supremacy management is as a future roadmap. As you follow this roadmap through the adoption of its dimensions (competitive compression, sphere of influence, and competitive configuration) you can use variable actors.^7,14

Strategic supremacy and competitive advantage

In the era of increased competition and globalization businesses are unavoidably under pressure to continuously innovate and adapt to the rapid changes in the business environment.² Strategic Supremacy is not a term that was coined recently or by anyone. From the beginning of time it has been the root cause of human conflict. The term dominance best describes supremacy in this context.⁶ The reason strategic supremacy is important is that it gives a unified perspective of the strategies the organization employs in dynamic environments.¹⁵ By sufficiently benefiting from these actors it is possible to manage the future and give the organization a dynamic structure.⁷ Strategic management’s growth as a discipline and a practice can be linked to the evolution and emergence of strategic supremacy in business. Strategic management emerged in response to the increasing complexity and unpredictability of business environments in the 1960s and 1970s which compelled managers to approach planning and decision-making with greater methodicalness and analysis.¹⁶ Strategic supremacy was first proposed by D'Aveni,¹⁷ who defined it as a company capacity to control the market by creating and defending spheres of influence competitive arsenals and a mix of collaboration competition and confrontation. In their definition Strikwerda and Rijnders,¹⁸ confirmed that they are process structures for determining the organizations strategic intent for each area of the scope and for charting the sphere of influence of an organization that chooses to increase its relative strength.

The importance of the strategic dimensions of supremacy is highlighted by its great role in building competitive positions and leading the market, and not only achieving growth and survival goals as traditional goals considering contemporary business, as these goals have become one of the organizations’ means to achieve their sovereignty and not a final goal.⁵ Strategic supremacy has come to be seen as a special kind of power that transcends size, scope, and survival, it is not so much what you have as how to use what you have.¹⁹ Strategically dominant organizations are part of an open system that reacts to changes in the environment and uses them as opportunities.²⁰ Organizational structure that establishes strategic intent is the source of strategic supremacy as stated by D’aveni.¹⁹ Essentially strategic supremacy is about altering the games rules and establishing new ones that players must follow.

The concept of sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) gained widespread significance when Porter and Advantage (1985) attempted to define it as strategies (cost leadership differentiation and focus) relevant to achieving the long-term market advantage.²¹ The term competitive advantage refers to a companies or organizations significant advantage over its competitors in a particular market or industry.²² When an organization has a sustainable competitive advantage it means that it can outperform its rivals in a given market or industry for an extended period of time. Companies’ primary competency is to build competitive internal capabilities by integrating value chain activities in a manner distinct from that of rivals.¹² In business administration gaining a competitive edge requires a deep understanding of best practices that can be adjusted and improved to fit the unique needs of each organization.²

The importance of the strategic dimensions of sovereignty is highlighted by its great role in building competitive positions and leading the market, and not only achieving growth and survival goals as traditional goals considering contemporary business, as these goals have become one of the organizations’ means to achieve their sovereignty and not a final goal.⁵ The hypothesized model that shows the connections between the research variables is shown in Figure 1 below. It examines the effect relationships between the dimensions of strategic supremacy and sustainable competitive advantage.

Figure 1.

Study model.

Sphere of influence and competitive advantage

In order to achieve their goals most organizations use their areas of influence in multiple markets which primarily express their product portfolio in those areas. This gives them power and control over them allowing them to impose their supremacy on broad competitive areas which occasionally include areas of other competitors.¹⁶ These are the domains or areas where an organization has a significant presence influence or competitive advantage. They can be relational (like markets or regions) functional (like product categories or segments) or relational (like customer groups or networks).²³ A company SOI according to Gómez, Orcos,²⁴ is the area where rival companies implicitly deter one another from escalating their competition in exchange for a commitment to the reciprocity principle in the primary markets. According to Allison,²⁵ it is the capacity of other powers to impose dominant control or demand respect from other states in their areas. Spheres of influence can be expanded or contracted through strategic measures like product development alliance building and market entry.²⁶ In order to redefine their competitive sphere and determine the level of competition organizations operating in highly competitive environments usually reallocate resources.²⁷ This essentially communicates the company line of products in markets with significant market dominance. According to Jarrar and Al Shawabkeh,²⁸ each area plays a strategic role in identifying the area of business practice influencing clients and rivals and creating a competitive advantage that preserves the organizations existing competitive position while establishing a new one. The primary means of attaining strategic sovereignty is the expansion of an organizations base of influence through ongoing processes of growth and development. This growth generally increases as power and influence increase.²⁹

With a competitive advantage a business can outperform its rivals and gain advantages like a larger market share greater profitability or a dominant position in the market. Factors that can be developed produced or acquired are considered competitive advantages because they are a fundamental component of business strategy and often serve as a company primary goal.⁷ Strategic supremacy is a contemporary strategic issue of a unique nature that distinguishes it from other modern concepts as it enables companies to gain power without having to destroy competitors. It is now believed that strategic supremacy is a unique form of power that goes beyond survival size and scope it is more about how to use what you have than it is about what you have.²⁶ Thus, it is a key concept in business strategy and often serves as a major goal for companies. Dominance of market share and local competitive advantage are therefore the most widely used criteria for determining spheres of influence. The following theories are thus established.

Sphere of Influence has a positive impact on competitive advantage.

Competitive configuration and competitive advantage

Strategic Supremacy expresses the organization’s position and dominance over the business sector, through which the formulation of strategies indicating power and influence that enable the organization to choose the field of competition and set the rules of the game in it, allowing it to control the highly competitive business environment.³⁰ Organizations that aspire to dominance must regularly assess the structure of the industry and look for methods to upset the balance of competition and outperform rivals. However this process is impacted by the various ways that organizations behave or the shifting industry conditions,³¹ which necessitate ongoing industry structure monitoring and analysis. Furthermore, in order to identify the most powerful party in an industry Strikwerda and Rijnders¹⁸ came to the conclusion that competitive configuration entails drawing a competitive map of all the major players. The compression that one of the parties makes on the others can then be used to determine which party is the most powerful in the sector.

It should be highlighted that collusive practices may result from the comparatively symmetric competition among industry leaders.²⁴ It should be highlighted that collusive practices may result from the comparatively symmetric competition among industry leaders. Strategic decisions cannot be fully understood as they do not consider competitive interaction, and the main measure by which the effectiveness of an organization’s strategy is evaluated is its ability to continuously generate extraordinary returns and benefits.²⁹

The core tenets of strategic supremacy are that while operational excellence core competencies and unique value may serve as the foundation for a strategy’s success and sustainability they are insufficient for an organization to be successful and influential over the long run. Instead, a strategy of power (influence) is necessary and the balance of power is the only thing that will foster innovation efficiency and continuity at the organizational level first at the industry level followed by society.²⁰

Translating the organizations vision and the mindset it adopts is the first step in the competitive formation process. It aids in explaining why certain organizations have greater access to resources than others and the capacity to successfully integrate these resources which are the foundation of competitive configuration and have an impact on business as stated.³² Consequently, the ensuing hypotheses are formulated.

Competitive Configuration has a positive impact on competitive advantage

Competitive compression and competitive advantage

Organizations have an urgent desire to grow and be sovereign over competitors, offset by an adverse reaction from their own pressure, and they are working to develop and lead areas of influence and try to grow and interact in their own field, which leads to continuous pressure.²⁹ The main source of competitive pressure is the need to use the company’s assets and strengths to defend against disruptive rivals. According to Kang and Na,¹² companies primary competency is the creation of competitive internal capabilities through the natural integration of value chain activities in a manner distinct from that of rivals. The balance of power as a condition for innovation Efficiency can only be achieved if the major players use their power to define, stabilize and respect the boundaries of the key markets of all major players to achieve dynamic stability, this idea not only governs competition but also changes destructive rebellious rivalry into constructive competition.²¹ Competitive compression according to Strikwerda,²⁰ is the ability of an organization to decrease the sources of cash flows that flow to the organization through price competition or by strengthening the organizations ability to enter new markets in the market for geographical products. Nonetheless, Khatib and Alshawabkeh⁶ argued that an organizations ability to tolerate the pressures of rival competition is known as competitive compression. Furthermore competitive compression is influenced by the following five forces: buyer power supplier strength entry barriers alternative product threats and industry competition.³³ According to Kwiotkowska and Gębczyńska,³⁴ environmental dynamism is reflected in an organizations incapacity to anticipate competition and customer behavior the rate at which market trends and innovations change and the advancements made in industry research and development. Therefore, the organization must strive to achieve excellence and progress in its distinctive products and services to be able to achieve a competitive advantage and thus eliminate destructive competitors who seek to sabotage and destroy. Consequently, the ensuing hypotheses are formulated:

Competitive compression has a positive impact on competitive advantage

Conceptual differentiation and synthesis

This literature review has defined three core interrelated concepts needed in understanding the competitive dynamics of organizations: strategic supremacy, sovereignty, and supremacy as power. Although they have been defined as similar concepts, a preliminary systematic review of the literature has suggested that there are unique contributions and interrelationships that command a more sophisticated treatment within a theoretical framework. Supremacy as Power, in defining the concept, holds the primary meaning of the ability of the actor to influence and control the actor’s competitive scope. There are the potential and the ability to determine the scope of the actor’s dominance, to command deference, and to will dominance. This sense of supremacy as power dominance aligns with a description of supremacy as control⁶ and the ability to control action.²⁵ Strategic Supremacy, building on the previous constructs, is the active exercise and dynamic state of deploying latent power to attain and maintain a favorable position in the market. It constitutes a sustained cycle of action and reaction: the phenomenon of market domination, competitive advantage, and leadership and their associated innovations. D'Aveni,¹⁷ has articulated this as the ability of a firm to exercise power in the market through control of competing spheres and influence and competitive resources. The recent literature exemplified by Ref. [35] further corroborates this by describing strategic supremacy as the power of an organization to dominate market resources through competitive advantage, innovation, leadership, and overcoming contextual external dependencies.

Sovereignty, and particularly in an economic or organizational context, is the final desired state of absolute independence, autonomy, and determination in strategic choice. It entails escaping external control and is the ultimate achievement for organizations hoping to position themselves in the world economy.^35,36 The attainment of sovereignty is characterized by a decline on the dependence of foreign resources, improvement of external partnerships at the regional level, and local innovations.³⁵

The interrelationships between the concepts described the hierarchical and causal nature of those relationships. One of the elements of supremacy is power; that is, supremacy as the inherent ability that an organization possesses. This ability is purposefully deployed through supremacy of a different kind, which is strategic supremacy. This term describes the actions taken and the processes that are ongoing in order to achieve and to keep a particular position of dominance. The organization is then able to achieve “strategic supremacy,” after which the organization is able to achieve sovereignty and that is to serve as a body independent of external influences and self-governing. Lastly, the organization is able, in a sense, to serve autonomy owing to the power that it is able to leverage through strategic actions.

The unique position of this work is to see sovereignty as the final strategic aim. This is true especially in the example of neo-colonialism as per Alshaar,³⁵ which is a dependency external to the organization and hinders autonomy. Providing the precise definitions in aim of this study is to help refine and draw a more sophisticated means of understanding to adjust the framework of analysis, more specifically of competitors, to include the level of dominance and the independence in order to elaborate more on the elements of control in an interconnected and complex global structure. This particular shift is more than control over the market to include the elements of self-determination. This is described within the context of strategic management.

Methodology

Research design

The complex relationships between strategic supremacy and a sustainable competitive advantage within Zain Telecommunications Company are examined in this study using a quantitative research methodology. Because it can measure the effects of variables and empirically investigate relationships between them quantitative research is preferred because it provides important insights into organizational processes.³⁷

Population and sampling

The study focuses on workers in 2024 who work for Zain Telecommunications Company main branches. By providing the link to the questionnaire to employees’ 190 questionnaires in all were given to the study population. This study received 170 responses during the period for data collection. Additionally, for data validation purposes 20 questionnaires were sent to people outside the study population. However, the responses from these were not included in the analysis. In order to select employees with odd ID numbers from a variety of departments including Management Information Technology Human Resources Accounting Marketing and Research and Development a systematic random sampling technique was used.

Data collection

As the main tool for obtaining empirical evidence data collection mostly depends on using a questionnaire.^38,39 In order to gather information about Strategic Supremacy and Sustainable Competitive Advantage the questionnaire has been thoughtfully created. The questionnaires items are modified from reputable research in the field to guarantee its validity and reliability.

The research by Refs. [11, 14] shed light on the independent variable of strategic supremacy and its components such as competitive pressures and sphere of influence. Additionally, Jibril and Yeşiltaş⁴⁰ are the source of questions centered on competitive advantage.

Google Forms is used to distribute the questionnaire to the study sample electronically. Numerous advantages including cost savings effective data collection and simplified administration come with electronic dissemination. Specialists from Jordan public and private universities participated in the questionnaires evaluation as part of the study methodology. This rigorous evaluation procedure guaranteed the validity and reliability of the surveys and every recommendation to improve the questionnaires quality was carefully examined. Reminders and follow-up communications are used to ensure a high response rate and participants are given clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Informed consent detailing the study goals voluntary participation confidentiality guarantees and data usage policies is given to participants and the entire process rigorously complies with ethical standards. Additionally the research complies with the rules and ethical principles that govern studies involving human participants.

Result

The data was analyzed using Smart-PLS software version 3. The descriptive statistics of the sample were obtained using the previously mentioned program for the analysis of the causal structure within the latent variable. The statistical analysis results were shown in the subsections that followed.

Evaluation of the measurement model

Reliability and validity regarded as two major issues, cut across the two major barriers that deal with the determination of the measures arising out of the study as being good or bad measures. The reliability of an instrument relates to the extent of consistency in response or in measurement of the factors for which the instrument was designed.⁴¹ Validity is the degree to which an instrument measures exactly what it is intended to measure.⁴² Evaluation of the measurement model in this study was carried out according to three elements: assessment of the reliability of indicator items, assessment of the discriminant validity and assessment of the convergent validity.

In the measurement model, the item CCF4 was found to have a factor loading below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.50, which suggests that the item did not properly capture the underlying construct. Hair, Ringle⁴³ and Henseler, Ringle⁴⁴ posit that an indicator with a factor loading between C 0.40 and 0.70 may be removed in case the construct’s reliability and validity improve. The removal of such low loading items is done to improve composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) to achieve greater accuracy and consistency in the measurement of the latent construct. In this case, CCF4 was removed in the PLS algorithm procedure in order to improve the overall measurement model, enhance the precision of construct representation, and satisfy the reliability criteria. This guarantees that the other indicators will fully capture the construct’s measurement by contributing to the reliability and validity of the results (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Measurement model.

The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) method was used to assess the convergent validity of each construct that was being studied as shown in Table 1. In line with Hair, Hult,⁴¹ states that a measures degree of positive correlation with other measures of the same concept is known as convergent validity. This study acceptable minimum AVE cut-off point for that perception was set at 0.5 as other earlier reports have also recommended.^41,45 The study findings indicate that while competitive advantage received the highest AVE rating (0.645) competitive configuration received the lowest acceptable rating (0.514). In summary, each of these values fell within the acceptable ranges for convergent validity.

Table 1.

Results of measurement model.

Variable	Items	Factor loading	Composite reliability (CR)	Average variance extracted >50%
Sphere of influence	SI1	0.789	0.899	0.640
	SI2	0.777
	SI3	0.847
	SI4	0.753
	SI5	0.830
Competitive configuration	CCF1	0.572	0.835	0.514
	CCF2	0.868
	CCF3	0.831
	CCF5	0.578
Competitive compression	CC1	0.661	0.871	0.576
	CC2	0.820
	CC3	0.762
	CC4	0.761
	CC5	0.783
Competitive advantage	CA1	0.805	0.900	0.645
	CA2	0.788
	CA3	0.872
	CA4	0.847
	CA5	0.693

To further examine the internal consistency for each constructor the CR figures shown in Table 1 were also utilized. The CR value is preferable when the figure is higher even though it is advised that the benchmark be at least 0.70. Regarding the CR values of each individual construct they are above the benchmark value ranging from 0.900 to 0.835, respectively. The variables meet the convergent validity criterion based on the previously mentioned benchmark values.

Discrimination validity was assessed in this study by applying the standards established by Fornell and Larcker⁴⁶ and Henseler, Ringle⁴⁷ to the constructs in question. The correlation coefficients of all the variables are less than the average square root of the extracted variance for a specific construct. e. Additionally other constructs are considered to possess discriminant validity.⁴¹ Table 2 shows that the average variance extracted for each construct is also met demonstrating that each construct has adequate discrimination validity because the squared correlation for each construct is less than the average variance extracted.

Table 2.

Assessment of discriminant validity by Fornell and Larcker.⁴⁶

	Competitive advantage	Competitive compression	Competitive configuration	Sphere of influence
Competitive advantage	0.803
Competitive compression	0.767	0.759
Competitive configuration	0.674	0.768	0.717
Sphere of influence	0.768	0.745	0.739	0.800

Their parameter estimates and statistics showed that all factors such as sphere of influence, competitive configuration, competitive compression, and competitive advantage could be construct’s factors. The aggregate outcomes indicate that the measurement model of this study had sufficient statistical, empirical support for reliability, and for convergent and discriminant validity.

Evaluation of the structural model

The study structural model also known as the inner model is characterized by the affective connections between the constructs under investigation. In this sense, the validity of the research hypotheses that support the proposed connections or impacts between these constructs is indicated by the structural models evaluation. In order to test the six research hypotheses the current study used path coefficient (ß) criteria. The path coefficients values have been standardized to lie between −1 and 1. In isolation the path coefficients sign makes it evident that a value near +1 indicates a strongly positive relationship between each of the two constructs and vice versa for a negative relationship.⁴¹ The referent level explains the use of this path coefficient value for determining the significant level of the relationships noting that a significant coefficient at a given error probability is indicated when the t-value exceeds a critical level. A significance level with a p-value 0.05 is denoted for instance by a t-value 1.96.

As the structural models goodness evaluation criteria the significance level of the path coefficients (beta values) and the determination coefficient measure should be as high as feasible according to Hair, Ringle.⁴³ However, the structural equation model is superior because as the Adjusted value rises so does the endogenous variables explanatory power over the exogenous variables. Sphere of Influence Competitive Configuration and Competitive Compression variables account for 74% of the variance in Competitive Advantage while other factors not included in this research model account for the remaining 26%. This is explained by the Competitive Advantage variable in this study, which has a 0.74 R2 provision as mentioned in the previous section.

The study results depicted in Figure 3 and Table 3 inform us on the determinants of Competitive Advantage at the organizational level. First, let us focus on the Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence has a significant positive effect on Competitive Advantage (ß = 0.419, t = 5.821, p < 0.001). Thus, H1 is within expectation. These findings illustrate the potential for enhanced competitive advantage resulting from the appeal of an organization and its network. Sphere of influence indicates how good the organizations are at managing stakeholders and where they want to be for them to have a Competitive Advantage in the future.

Figure 3.

Structural model.

Table 3.

Hypothesis testing.

	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (\|O/STDEV\|)	p values
Competitive compression -> Competitive advantage	0.408	0.410	0.078	5.203	0.000
Competitive configuration -> Competitive advantage	0.060	0.065	0.080	0.755	0.451
Sphere of influence -> Competitive advantage	0.419	0.415	0.072	5.821	0.000

Second, it was discovered that Competitive Configuration has no substantial effects on Competitive Advantage (ß = 0.060, t = 0.755, p = 0.451). Hence, H2 is not accepted. This result implies that the pattern of integration of internal resources and structures by organizations may not be a direct source of competitive advantage in the case of the present study. One possible reason for such a conclusion may be that Competitive Configuration is affected indirectly or situationally by moderating variables, which could be environmental or organizational. Future studies may address whether this particular variable is a moderator of other drivers or operates independently as a mediating driver towards obtaining Competitive Advantage.

Competitive Compression has a significant and positive effect on Competitive Advantage (ß = 0.408, t = 5.203, p < 0.001). Therefore, H3 is supported. The significance of taking actions to make the institution more competitive by looking for innovative ways to conduct business boosting productivity and creating goods and services that differentiate themselves from the competition is highlighted by this outcome. As one of the actionable precursors of competitive advantage, competitive compression appears to be pertinent in this situation.

When combined these results highlight a few of the numerous chances for creating a competitive edge. While competitive compression and the sphere of influence are both noteworthy and well-supported competitive configuration is not significant and necessitates further study into potential performance scenarios. Strategically speaking companies would be well advised to take advantage of the opportunities that the expansive Sphere of Influence and exploitation compression present. Along with strong stakeholder involvement, more creative and adaptable competitive strategies ought to be used. Conversely, the competitive configuration should demonstrate how internal resources and organizational design have been used and it should aim to identify any gaps or limitations that could improve the effect. Businesses will be able to create a diverse system that will allow for long-term and sustained market improvements by utilizing the spatial aspects of competitive compression and sphere of influence while acknowledging the limitations of competitive configuration.

Discussion of findings

The study use of PLS-SEM to evaluate the connections between the different aspects of competitive advantage and strategic supremacy produced significant findings that merit further theoretical development. It takes a kind of synthesis that goes beyond integration to incorporate the findings into the larger framework of strategic management especially when it comes to the significant positive effects of sphere of influence and competitive compression on competitive advantage.

Sphere of influence and competitive advantage: A stakeholder and network perspective

Sphere of Influence has a strong positive effect on competitive advantage (ß = 0.419, t = 5.821, p < 0.001) which is the study most important and central finding. It reaffirms that gaining and maintaining a market position depends on an organizations network of connections and relationships. This is more than just an indication of how appealing an organization is. Stakeholder theory and network-based perspectives of competitive advantage provide a better explanation for this strong correlation.

Stakeholder theory asserts that managing relationships with stakeholders including customers, suppliers, employees, community members, and even rival businesses is not only morally right but also essential to achieving organizational objectives and gaining a competitive edge.^48,49 An organization’s capability to trust, bring together, and harmonize interests among different parties is indicative of effective stakeholder engagement. These organizations are able to earn and manage stakeholders’ trust so as to access crucial resources, enhance reputation, co-create value, and therefore, sustain competitive advantage, as stated in Husted and Allen.⁵⁰ In the original Tap Scott discussion, the organization’s attractiveness was directly correlated with stakeholders’ perceptions and interactions, which manifested as tangible outputs in the form of customer loyalty, supplier reliability, and community support.

Furthermore, according to the network-based view of competitive advantage, a company’s personal connections can also provide it with a competitive edge.⁵¹ By definition, a wide range of organizational connections is necessary to have a broad sphere of influence. These connections allow organizations to benefit from resources information and knowledge. As a result, businesses are better equipped to identify opportunities lower risks and adjust to a more dynamic market.⁵² By establishing and managing these strategic networks businesses can gain access to complementary resources alter the course of an entire industry seize niche markets and even shut out potential competitors all of which increase their competitive edge. It is consistent with the idea that being a part of powerful networks is a source of competitive advantage that is typically difficult for rivals to obtain that having a wider sphere of influence has a positive impact on competitive advantage. Therefore, the substantial empirical evidence for the influence of the Sphere of Influence on competitive advantage is not just statistical evidence. Instead, it is an external expression of the strategic necessity of managing organizational networks and creating long-lasting relationships. An organization’s investment in a relational architecture that maintains its long-term competitiveness increases with the amount of money it spends creating and preserving its sphere of influence.

Competitive compression and competitive advantage: A dynamic capabilities perspective

This research identifies an organizations focus on retention and competitive displacement relief by identifying more inventive elastic and flexible methods of operation. When considering this finding from the perspective of dynamic capabilities theory it gains more theoretical support. Competitive advantage was found to be strongly and favorably impacted by competitive compression (ß = 0.408, t = 5.203, p < 0.001).

The dynamic capabilities theory states that a company’s ability to recognize opportunities counter threats seize and hold onto all of them and repurpose its resources creatively gives it a competitive edge.^53,54 According to its original definition competitive compression describes an organizations capacity to bear the full force of rivalry including price and market entry.²⁰ The organizations ability to adapt is most needed in this situation. Businesses that face intense competition must always be able to innovate optimize their processes and differentiate themselves. This calls for a group of procedures and systems related to quick learning adaptation and strategic development.⁵⁵

The dynamic capabilities of a company can directly address the need to increase productivity investigate new opportunities and differentiate products/services due to competitive compression. By defining and upholding pertinent market boundaries these capabilities enable businesses to maintain dynamic stability by balancing disruptive rivalry and healthy competition.⁵⁶ Given the positive impact of competitive compression on competitive advantage, it follows that those who successfully manage and take advantage of these pressures are the ones who have exceptional dynamic capabilities that allow them to innovate and adapt during times of market turbulence. This perspective sees competitive compression as a source of agility and adaptability that a company can use for long-term competitive advantage rather than just as a challenge that must be overcome.

Reconsidering competitive configuration

On the other hand, the finding that competitive configuration has no discernible effect on competitive advantage (ß = 0.060, t = 0.755, p = 0.451) does raise some possibilities for theoretical explanation. Although it appears at first that internal resource and structure integrations are not the source of competitive advantage in this instance dynamic capabilities theory is one potential method to further explore this finding. Competitive configuration may not affect competitive advantage but it does offer a foundation for the development of dynamic capabilities. The organizations capacity to perceive capture and reorganize may be hindered in this situation by inefficient internal configuration or misalignment, which would indirectly reduce competitive advantage. As a moderating or mediating approach, future research must evaluate competitive configuration in terms of potential dynamic capabilities elucidating which contexts impose flexibility constraints and which configurations enable and deploy dynamic capabilities.

Conclusion and implications for strategic management theory

By demonstrating how the empirical findings can be meaningfully connected to the current theories this integration strengthens the theoretical foundations of strategic management. The connections outlined in network-based perspectives and stakeholder theory which highlight the strategic significance of external connections provide the best understanding of the sphere of influences power. The advantages of competitive compression also emphasize the value of organizational renewal and agility which are outlined in the dynamic capabilities theory. In addition to grounding its findings in theory this research improves conceptualizations of the sources of competitive advantage in dynamic and complex environments by connecting these findings to these theories.

Implications and contributions

The results of this study have the potential to enhance and advance the theory and practice of sustainable competitive advantage. According to the study implications the Sphere of Influence has a strong and positive effect on competitive advantage and should be emphasized because it gives businesses the justification they need to manage their stakeholders well earn their trust and create the conditions necessary for them to expand and investigate new markets and business models. Businesses can increase their competitive advantage in a number of ways including by better branding themselves or collaborating with their stakeholders more actively.

Additionally, the advantages of competitive compression confirm the significance of innovation value. Process optimization differentiation of offered goods and services from competitors and ongoing process improvement are essential. Maintaining competitive advantage in the present and improving relevance in the future are achieved through the use of transformational practices and market responsiveness. However, in terms of competitive configuration this study indicates that organizational structure and internal resources do not directly result in competitive advantage in this setting. In other studies, this makes it possible to investigate whether such a factor functions as a mediator or moderator. More precisely, it is advised that businesses assess their internal structures to identify any gaps and match their configurations to the demands of their strategic goals.

Collectively, these findings offer managers practical advice. A multifaceted strategy for gaining and maintaining competitive advantage that supports focusing on external factors would be created by comprehending the role of stakeholders and creating internal innovation responsive gap strategies. These findings may help legislators’ foster greater cooperation and creativity in related sectors. By examining the influence of the direct competitive form and acknowledging the competitive sphere and competitive compression, it contributes to the literature on strategic management. Examining how particular internal configurations and reactions to outside circumstances and additional interactions are motivated by this. In order to better identify the factors that drive competitiveness, such additional work would be sectoral and regional in nature. By combining the aforementioned contributions and implications this work offers a road map for businesses looking to create and maintain adaptable competitive advantages. It includes thoughtful observations and theoretical advancements focused on the intersection of knowledge in practice and scholarship.

Conclusion

Gaining and maintaining a sustainable competitive edge at the organizational level is the main goal of this study. The sphere of influence and competitive compression seem to be the strongest since they emphasize the importance of stakeholders and the adoption of new practices. These findings suggest that firms must emphasize collaboration with the networks that are forming, developing new relationships and new models to compete in an ever-changing market. In contrast, the non-significance of competitive configuration suggests that resources and the structural configuration of the organizations may in some cases not be relevant to competitive advantage. This result highlights the need for further collective and individual research to establish the moderating or mediating effects of the variable in question and the contexts under which it operates. What this suggests is that there is a theoretic contribution to strategic management as well as a practical contribution to the institutions in pursuit of their strategy change. It is only by tackling influence and fostering innovation alongside dealing with internal configuration challenges that an organization will stand a better chance of constructing a sustainable competitive strategy. There is scope to advance this research study and broaden the application of the results to other contexts and areas of interest that may help to enhance understanding and more effective strategies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge Jadara University for their support and encouragement, which were instrumental in the successful completion of this research.

ORCID iDs

Abdallah M. Obeidat

Rhma Omar Hindawi

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Sołoducho-Pelc

Sulich

. Between sustainable and temporary competitive advantages in the unstable business environment. Sustainability 2020; 12(21): 8832.

Agustian

Pohan

Zen

, et al. Human resource management strategies in achieving competitive advantage in business administration. J Adman 2023; 1(2): 108–117.

Farida

Setiawan

. Business strategies and competitive advantage: the role of performance and innovation. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex 2022; 8(3): 163.

Pei

X-L

Guo

, et al. Does the effect of customer experience on customer satisfaction create a sustainable competitive advantage? A comparative study of different shopping situations. Sustainability 2020; 12(18): 7436.

Hewitt

Van Rensburg

LJJ

. The role of business incubators in creating sustainable small and medium enterprises. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management 2020; 12(1): 9.

Khatib

Alshawabkeh

. Digital transformation and its impact on strategic supremacy mediating role of digital HRM: an evidence from Palestine. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ 2022; 19: 197–221.

Mohammed

. The relationship between alertness entrepreneurial and strategic supremacy. Turk J Comput Math Educ (TURCOMAT) 2021; 12(13): 2541–2555.

Yang

Jin

Zhao

. Platform leadership and sustainable competitive advantage: the mediating role of ambidextrous learning. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 836241.

Ghaith

. Exploring the relationship between knowledge management and core competencies to improve universities success in Jordan: testing the mediating effect of employee engagement. Period Eng Nat Sci 2023; 11(5): 76–90.

10.

Hmaid

Al-Jarjari

. Diagnosing the dimensions of strategic supremacy exploratory field research in Asiacell Telecom Company. J Babylon Center Humanities Studies 2023; 13(2).

11.

Abazeed

. The impact of dynamic capabilities on strategic supremacy through organizational immunity at Jordanian telecommunication companies. Jordan J Bus Adm 2022; 18(3).

12.

Kang

. Effects of strategy characteristics for sustainable competitive advantage in sharing economy businesses on creating shared value and performance. Sustainability 2020; 12(4): 1397.

13.

Rajapathirana

RPJ

Hui

. Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. J Innov Knowl 2018; 3(1): 44–55.

14.

Abugabel

. The impact of resonant leadership on strategic supremacy: the mediating role of attitudes toward organizational change: an empirical study on foreign universities in Egypt. Alexandria University Journal of Administrative Sciences 2022; 59(5): 161–217.

15.

Rashid

Muttar

. Strategic supremacy of organizations in dynamic environments: an agility perspective. sajssh 2023; 4(4): 51–75.

16.

D'Aveni

. Corporate spheres of influence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2004.

17.

D'Aveni

. Strategic supremacy through disruption and dominance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 1999.

18.

Strikwerda

Rijnders

. Possible end games in the European postal market: qui bone? Regulatory and Economic Challenges in the Postal and Delivery Sector. Springer, 2005, pp. 295–316.

19.

D'aveni

. Strategic supremacy: how industry leaders create spheres of influence from their product portfolios to achieve preeminence. Simon & Schuster, 2010.

20.

Strikwerda

. Strategic supremacy-Operational excellence is not sufficient; your firm needs a power strategy, Nolan. 2002, Norton & Co.

21.

Quaye

Mensah

. Marketing innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana. Manag Decis 2019; 57(7): 1535–1553.

22.

Cegliński

. The concept of competitive advantages. Logic, sources and durability. J Posit Manag 2016; 7(3): 57–70.

23.

Al-Nashmi

Al-Arwali

. The impact of visionary leadership on strategic supremacy: a field study on pharmaceutical companies operating in the capital municipality of Sana'a, Yemen. J Manag Hum Sci 2023; 1(3): 121–147.

24.

Gómez

Orcos

Palomas

. Operating under the radar in spheres of influence: taking advantage of industry leaders’ market domains. Strateg Organ 2020; 18(2): 275–300.

25.

Allison

. The new spheres of influence: sharing the globe with other great powers. Foreign Aff 2020; 99: 30.

26.

Fabrizio

Kaczam

de Moura

, et al. Competitive advantage and dynamic capability in small and medium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Rev Manag Sci 2022; 16(3): 617–648.

27.

Rosário

Raimundo

. Importance of competitive dynamics of strategic groups: opportunities and challenges. Adm Sci 2024; 14(7): 147.

28.

Jarrar

Al Shawabkeh

, Toward strategic supremacy through absorptive capacity: the mediating role of organizational ambidexterity at Jordanian commercial banks. Available at SSRN 4712473, 2024.

29.

Al-Yasiri

Al-Taie

Hussein

. The role of strategic renewal in achieving strategic sovereignty: an analytical study of the opinions of senior leaders in the General Company for the Southern Cement Industry. J Manag Econ 2017; 6(24): 51–87.

30.

Al-Bashqali

. The role of strategic improvisation in strategic sovereignty through strategic cooperation and adopting the maturity of knowledge management. PhD thesis, Business Administration, University of Dohuk, College of …, 2021.

31.

Al_kenany

HHK

Al_najjar

SFA

. The role of disclosure in achieving the strategic supremacy of business organizations. Kut University College Journal for Humanitarian Science 2021; 2(1).

32.

Lafuente

Leiva

Moreno-Gómez

, et al. A nonparametric analysis of competitiveness efficiency: the relevance of firm size and the configuration of competitive pillars. BRQ Bus Res Q 2020; 23(3): 203–216.

33.

Hill

Schilling

Jones

. Strategic management: an integrated approach: theory and cases. Cengage Learning, 2020.

34.

Kwiotkowska

Gębczyńska

. The relationship between environmental uncertainty and enterprise performance. A fuzzy-set analysis. Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering 2018; 1: 809–816.

35.

Alshaar

AMK

. Strategic supremacy of business organizations in developing countries in the context of neocolonialism. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 2025; 15(3): 1632–1650.

36.

Mutandwa

. Strategy implementation in local authorities in Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe. University of the Free State, 2020.

37.

Mahdi

Nassar

Almsafir

. Knowledge management processes and sustainable competitive advantage: an empirical examination in private universities. J Bus Res 2019; 94: 320–334.

38.

Johnson

Turner

. Data collection strategies. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Sage, 2003, pp. 297–315.

39.

Kareem

. The impact of human resource development on organizational effectiveness: an empirical study. Management dynamics in the knowledge economy 2019; 7(1): 29–50.

40.

Jibril

Yeşiltaş

. Employee satisfaction, talent management practices and sustainable competitive advantage in the Northern Cyprus hotel industry. Sustainability 2022; 14(12): 7082.

41.

Hair

. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, 2016.

42.

Sekaran

Bougie

. Research methods for business: a skill building approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

43.

Hair

Ringle

Sarstedt

. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Market Theor Pract 2011; 19(2): 139–152.

44.

Henseler

Ringle

Sinkovics

. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009, pp. 277–319.

45.

Ramayah

Ling

Taghizadeh

, et al. Factors influencing SMEs website continuance intention in Malaysia. Telematics Inf 2016; 33(1): 150–164.

46.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981; 18(1): 39–50.

47.

Henseler

Ringle

Sarstedt

. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 2015; 43(1): 115–135.

48.

Freeman

. Longitudinal analyses of the effects of trade unions. J Labor Econ 1984; 2(1): 1–26.

49.

Harrison

Wicks

. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus Ethics Q 2013; 23(1): 97–124.

50.

Husted

Allen

. Corporate social strategy: stakeholder engagement and competitive advantage. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

51.

Gulati

Nohria

Zaheer

. Strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 2000; 21(3): 203–215.

52.

Dyer

Singh

. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 1998; 23(4): 660–679.

53.

Teece

Pisano

Shuen

. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 1997; 18(7): 509–533.

54.

Teece

. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 2007; 28(13): 1319–1350.

55.

Eisenhardt

Martin

. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? The SMS Blackwell handbook of organizational capabilities, 2017, pp. 341–363.

56.

Quaye

Mensah

. Entrepreneurial leadership and performance of female-owned small and medium-sized enterprises in Ghana. Int J Enterpren Small Bus 2019; 38(1/2): 19–44.