Author :
Abstract
Değişimin temel belirleyici unsurlar arasında görüldüğü günümüz dünyasında, hayatta kalma çabası içindeki örgütlerin, faaliyet gösterdikleri çevresel değişimler ile yapısal bazı özelliklerini ve stratejilerini uyumlaştırmaları gerektiği, farklı yaklaşımlar tarafından dile getirilen hususlardandır. Değişen çevresel koşullara uyum anlamında yürütülen çabalar arasında yenilik yapmanın en önemli faaliyetlerden olduğu ve yeni ürün ve hizmet ortaya koyma anlamında başarılı olan örgütlerin diğerlerine göre daha avantajlı olarak değerlendirilebileceği ayrıca vurgulanmaktadır. Yenilikçilik anlamında ilgili yazında yapılan sınıflandırmalar arasında önde gelen örneklerden olan ve Miles ve Snow (2003) tarafından yapılan tipolojide 4 farklı yenilik yapma stratejiden bahsedilmekte olup, söz konusu stratejilerin araştırmacı, analizci, savunmacı ve tepkici olduğu belirtilmektedir. Örgütlerin belirli yapısal özellikleri ve yenilik yapmadaki çeşitli taktiksel uygulamalarından yola çıkılarak oluşturulan tipolojinin, yenilik anlamında belirli çevresel koşullarda belirli örgütsel yapıları öngördüğü varsayımı, bu araştırmanın çıkış noktasını oluşturmaktadır. Bu çerçevede, bu araştırmanın amacı örgütlerin yenilik yapma stratejileri ile örgütsel yapı arasındaki ilişkiyi gözler önüne sererken çevrenin bahse konu kavramlar üzerindeki etkisini araştırmak ve konuya ilişkin olarak bazı kuramsal önermeler ortaya koymaktır. Söz konusu önemeler çerçevesinde, çevresel değişimin hızlı ve belirsizliğin yüksek olduğu sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren örgütlerin, hayatta kalmaları anlamında yeniliğin hayati bir rol oynadığı söylenebilecek olup bu sektörlerde hayatta kalmayı başarabilen örgütlerin, rekabetçi niteliklerini sürdürebilmelerini teminen yeni ürün yaratma konusuna odaklandığı bu sebeple yüksek düzeyde karmaşık eşgüdüm mekanizmalarına ihtiyaç duyduğu kaydedilen ‘Araştırmacı’ stratejiyi benimsedikleri öngörülmektedir. Sözü edilen bu örgütlerin de merkezilik ve biçimsellik düzeylerinin görece düşük, uzmanlaşma düzeylerinin ise yüksek olabileceği değerlendirilmektedir. Konuya ilişkin olarak oluşturulan kuramsal önermelerin, ileri de yapılacak görgül çalışmalara ışık tutması öngörülmektedir.
Keywords
Abstract
In todays’ world that the change can be seen as one of the basic determinants, it is declared by some approaches that organizations are to be required to harmonize their structural elements and strategies with the environmental changes in order to survive. Among the adaptive efforts of organizations to environmental changes, making innovations can be considered as one of the most important activities. Besides, it is also underlined that the organizations, which can manage to present some new products and services, can be evaluated as more advantageous than others. In the classification about making innovation that has been made by Miles and Snow (2003), there are 4 different types of strategy and these are prospector, analyser, defender and reactor. This typology is constituted regarding some organizational structural elements and tactical operations of organizations concerning making innovations. In that sense, the assumption of specific environmental conditions forecast specific organizational structural characteristics is the starting point of this paper. In that context, the main purpose of this paper is to reveal the influence of environmental changes upon the interaction between organizational innovation strategies and organizational structures and to suggest some theoretical assumptions. In the scope of these assumptions, the organizations, which are operating in the rapid chancing and highly uncertain environments, making innovations can play a vital role concerning organizational survival. Besides, the organizations, which can successfully manage to survive, can considered under the classification of ‘Analyser’, that are to focus upon producing new things in order to maintain their competitive features and to provide it they require highly complex coordinating mechanisms. Moreover, these analyser organizations are assumed to have low centralization, low formalization and high specialization. The assumptions that are presented in the paper are foreseen to shed a light in the future empirical studies.
Keywords
- Aiken, M. ve Hage, J. (1968). “Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure”.
- Aiken, M. ve Hage, J. (1968). “Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure”. American Sociological Review, 33: 912-930.
- Ailin, M., ve Lindgren, P. (2009). “Conceptualizing strategic innovation leadership for competitive survival and excellence”. Journal of Knowledge Globalization,1(2).
- Arnbruster, H.; Bikfalvi, A.; Kinkel, S. & Lay, G. (2008). “Organizatioanal Innovation: The Challenges of Measuring Nontechnical Innovation in Large-scale Surveys. Technovation”. 28:644-657
- Aydın, İ. (2012).” Bilişim Sektörü ve Türkiye’nin Sektördeki Potansiyeli”. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education. Volume 1(1):180-200.
- Barca, M. (2002). Yeni ekonomide bilgi yönetiminin stratejik önemi. Stratejik Boyutuyla Modern Yönetim Yaklaşımları İstanbul: Beta.
- Bierly, P., Gallagher, S., & Spender, J. C. (2014). “Innovation decision making in high-risk organizations:A comparison of the US and Soviet attack submarine programs”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(3), 759-795.
- Bodewes, W.E.J. (2002). “Formalization and innovation revisited”. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (4): 214-223.
- Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M., (1961). “The management of innovation”. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
- Chang, M. H., & Harrington, J. E. (2000). “Centralization vs. decentralization in a multi-unit organization:A computational model of a retail chain as a multi-agent adaptive system”. Management Science, 46(11): 1427-1440.
- Chidamber, S. R. & Kon, H. B. (1994). “A Research Retrospective of Innovation Inception and Success:The Technology-Push Demand-Pull Question”. International Journal of Technology Management, 9 (1):94- 112.
- Chudnovsky, D., A. Lopez & G. Pupato (2006). “Innovation and Productivity in Developing Countries: AStudy of Argentine Manufacturing Firms’ Behavior (1992–2001)”, Research Policy 35 (2): 266–288.Cohen, W.M. & S. Klepper. (1996). “A Reprise of Size and R&D”. Economic Journal, 106: 925-951.Daft, R. L. 2001. Organizational Theory and Design. Cincinati, South Western College Publishing.
- Damanpour, F., (1991). “Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”. Academy of management journal, 34(3): 555-590.
- Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). “Theories of organizational structure and innovationadoption: the role of environmental change”. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1):Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). “Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishinginnovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations”. Journal of engineering and technology management, 23(4): 269-291.
- DeSarbo, W. S., Anthony D. B., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). “Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategicframework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance”. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1): 47-74.
- Drucker, P. (2002). “The Discipline of Innovation”. Harvard Business Review Special Issue: The Innovative Enterprise. 95-102.
- Donaldson, L. (1999). “The normal science of structural contingency theory”.Studying Organizations: Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 51-70.
- Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. London. Sage.Downs Jr, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). “Conceptual issues in the study of innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 700-714.
- Edquist, C. (2001). “The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the ar”t. In DRUID Conference, Aalborg (pp. 12-15).
- Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P. & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). “Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus Incremental Innovation”. Management Science. 30 (6): 682-695.
- Gilbert, J. T. (1994). “Choosing an Innovation Strategy: Theory and Practice”. Business Horizons, 37(6):16-22.
- Güven, M., Göktaş K. Ulualp, H. (2010). “Yöneticilerin Yeniden Yapılanma Sürecinde İnovasyona Bakış Açısı: Kardemir Örneği”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi.
- Govindarajan, V. (1986). “Decentralization, strategy, and effectiveness of strategic business units in multibusiness organizations”. Academy of Management Review, 11(4):844-856.
- Hadjimanolis, A. & Dickson, K. (2000). “Innovation Satrategies of SMEs in Cyprus, a Small Developing Country”. International Small Business Journal. 18 (4): 62-79.
- Hage, J., & Dewar, R. (1973). “Elite values versus organizational structure in predicting innovation”. Administrative science quarterly, 279-290.
- Hamel, G. (2006). “The Why, What and How of Management Innovation”. Harvard Business Review,72-8.Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitativeinnovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11):1661-1674
- Johannessen, J. A., & Skaalsvik, H. (2014). “Innovative leadership in organizations: the road to innovation performance”. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(2): 139- 152.
- Kim, T. H., Lee, J. N., Chun, J. U., & Benbasat, I. (2014). “Understanding the effect of knowledge management strategies on knowledge management performance: A c ontingency
- McLaughlın, P., Bessant, J. & Smart, P. (2005). “Developing an Organizational Culture That FacilitatesRadical Innovation in a Mature Small to Medium Sized Company: Emerged Findings”. SWP 04/05. ISBN 1 85905 174X. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/858/2/SWP0405.pdf.
- Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). “Archetypes of strategy formulation”.Management science, 24(9), 921- 933.
- Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). “Organizational strategy, structure, and process”. Academy of management review, 3(3): 546-562.
- Mıles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational Strategy, and Process, Stanford University Pres, Stanford, California.
- Moch, M. K., & Morse, E. V. (1977). “Size, centralization and organizational adoption of innovations”. American Sociological Review, 716-725.
- Montgomery, E. & W. Wascher. (1988). “Creative Destruction and the Behaviour of Productivity Over the Business Cycle”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(1): 168-72.
- Morden, T. (1989). “Innovation: people and implementation”. Management Decision, 27 (3): 5-15.
- Morgan, R. E. & Strong, C. A. (1998). “Market Orientation and Dimensions of Strategic Orientation”. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11-12): 1051-1073.
- Neely, A., & Hii, J. (1999). “The innovative capacity of firms”. Report commissioned by the GovernmentOffice for the East of England, Center for Business Performance, Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge, UK, 1-36.
- OECD, (2005). Oslo Kılavuzu, 3. Baskı, TÜBİTAK. Şubat
- Oke, A., MunshI, N. & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). “The Influence of Leadership on Innovation Process and Activities”. Organizational Dynamics, 38 (1): 64-72.
- Padmore, T., Schuetze, H., & Gibson, H. (1998). “Modeling systems of innovation: An Enterprise - centered view”. Research Policy, 26(6): 605-624.
- Pennings, J. M. (1992). “Structural contingency theory: A reappraisal”. L. Cummings ve B. Staw (Der.), Research in Organizational Behavior : 14: 267-309.
- Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. (1977). “Organization structure, individual attitudes and innovation”. Academy of management review, 2(1): 27-37
- Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review. 71-91.
- Sağsan, M. 2008. “Bilişim Sektöründeki Firmaların Örgütsel Tasarımlama Yaklaşımı Çerçevesinde Yenilik Yapma Eğilimleri”. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi. Ankara.
- Saleh, S. D., & Wang, C. K. (1993). “The management of innovation: strategy, structure, and organizational climate”. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 40(1):14-21.
- Sargut, A. S. (2007). “Yapısal koşul bağımlılık kuramının örgütsel çevre kuramları bağlamındaki yeri”. A. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Der), Örgüt Kuramları: 35–75. Ankara: İmge.
- Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). “Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formastructure andnew venture performance in emerging economic sectors”. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 21-Slappendel, C., (1996). “Perspectives on innovation in organizations”. Organization Studies, 17 (1): 107-Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). “Organizational innovativeness: exploring the relationshipbetween organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures oforganizational performance”. Omega, International Journal of Management Science 24(6): 631-647.
- Teece, D. J. (1996). “Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31(2): 193-224.
- Tıdd, J. (2001). “Innovation Management in Context: Environment, Organization and Performance”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3 (3):169-183.
- Tushman, M L. & Nelson, R. R. (1990). “Introduction: Technology, organizations and innovation”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 1-8.
- Van der Voet, J. (2014). “The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization:Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure”. European Management Journal,32(3): 373-382.
- Walker .Jr. OC, Boyd .Jr. HW, Mullins J, Larr´ ech´ e JC (2003). “Marketing Strategy: Planning and Implementation” (4th edn). Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Homewood, IL.
- Walsh, J. P., & Dewar, R. D. (1987). “Formalization And The Organizational Life Cycle” [1]. Journal of Management Studies, 24(3): 215-231
- Zaltman, G.; Duncan, R, & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. NewYork: Wiley
