Different Assessment on Dimensions of the Relationship between Organization’s Age and Organizational Structure with in Concept of Theories of Environmental Organizations: A Literary Review

Year 2016, , 361 - 382, 01.12.2016

Murad Yüksel Oya Aytemiz Seymen , Oya İnci Bolat

https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.645235

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The relationship between the organizations’ age and the elements of the organizational structures is an important topic discussed in management literature. In the limited numbers of the researches about this relation, it can be said that, there is no determination among the researchers. First of all, contingency theory and organizational ecology theory have different approaches to the age-structure relation. The contingency theory explicates the effects of the organization’s age on structural elements and organization’s size is only an aspect of the contingency. But in the literature, this relation has different aspects. On the other side, the most popular reference to dynamics of organizational age is organizational ecology theory and in the content of this theory the relation between organizational age-structure generally about “newness” and “adaptation”. In this theory, organizations are compared as young or old organizations from demographical aspect. Independent from the theory, the discussions about the definition of the organizational age, the differences between the properties of young or old organizations, and the age as a dependent or control variant of the relation have an important place in the literature. So the aim of this study is to explicate the relationship between the organizational age and organizational structure from the different aspects of organizational theories. The other aim is to make a systematical approach, by using two different theory, to the fundamental determinations and contradictions areas of the literature.

Keywords

Organizational Age, Contingency Theory, Organizational Structure

ÇEVRECİ ÖRGÜT KURAMLARI KAPSAMINDA ÖRGÜT YAŞI İLE ÖRGÜT YAPISI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN BOYUTLARI ÜZERİNDE FARKLI DEĞERLENDİRMELER: YAZINSAL BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Örgüt yaşı ile örgüt yapısını oluşturan unsurlar arasındaki ilişki, yönetim yazınında tartışılan konulardan biridir. Bu konuda yapılan sınırlı sayıda araştırma incelendiğinde, söz konusu ilişkinin niteliği hakkında tam bir uzlaşıya varıldığı söylenemez. Öncelikle Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı ve Örgütsel Çevrebilim Kuramları örgüt yaşı-örgüt yapısı ilişkisine farklı açılardan yaklaşmaktadır. Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı kapsamında, örgüt yaşının yapısal unsurlar üzerindeki etkisi irdelenirken, bu ilişkide “örgüt büyüklüğü”nün bir koşul bağımlısı olarak etkili olduğu vurgusu ön plana çıkmakta; ancak yazında bu etkinin farklı şekillerde ele alındığı görülmektedir. Diğer yandan, örgüt yaşının ve dinamiklerinin açıklanmasında en çok başvurulan kuram, Örgütsel Çevrebilim Kuramıdır ve bu kuram kapsamında, örgütsel yaş ile yapı ilişkisi, çoğunlukla “yenilik” ve “uyum” boyutlarında ele alınmakta ve demografik açıdan genç-yaşlı örgütler karşılaştırmasına konu olmaktadır. Kuramlardan bağımsız olarak; örgüt yaşının tanımına ve gençlik/yaşlılık niteliğine yönelik tanımlardaki farklılık ile örgüt yaşının bağımlı ya da kontrol değişkeni olarak ele alınmasına dönük eleştiriler, yazında bir hayli önem taşımaktadır. Dolayısıyla çalışmada amaçlanan, yazında örgüt yaşı ile örgüt yapısı ilişkisini, iki farklı çevresel kuramın bakış açıları ile ayrı ayrı irdelemek ve bu alandaki temel uzlaşı ve uzlaşmazlık noktalarını sistematik biçimde ortaya koyabilmektir.

Keywords

Örgüt Yaşı, Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı, Örgüt Yapısı, Örgütsel Çevrebi

References

• Abatecola, G., Cafferata, R. ve Poggesi, S. (2012). Arthur Stinchcombe’s “Lia- bility of Newness”: Contribution and Impact of the Construct. Journal of Management History, 18(4), 402-418.
• Abratt, R. ve Mofokeng T.N. (2001). Development and Management of Corpo- rate Image in South Africa, European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 368-386.
• Aktaş, M. ve Şener, İ. (2012). Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı. H. Cenk Sözen, H.Nejat Basım (Der.), Örgüt Kuramları (91-116). İstanbul: Beta BYD A.Ş.
• Aldrich, H. ve Auster, E.R. (1986) Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Age and Size and Their Strategic Implications. Research in Organizational Be- havior, 8, 165-186.
• Anderson, B.S. ve Eshima, Y. (2013) The Influence of Firm Age and Intangi- ble Resources on the Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Growth Among Japanese SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 413-429.
• Anderssen, T.W. ve Lindestad, B. (1998) Customer Loyalty and Complex Ser- vices, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (1), 7-32.
• Andersson, S., Gabrielsson, J., ve Wictor, I. (2004) International Activities in Small Firms: Examining Factors Influencing the Internationalization and Export Growth of Small Firms. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 22-34.
• Autio, E., Sapienza, H. ve Almeida, J. (2000) Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 43(5), 909-924.
• Baştürk, F.H. ve Ödül,Y. (2008) Firma Büyüklüğü ile Firma Büyümesi Arasın- daki İlişkinin Gibrat Yasası Çerçevesinde Ele Alınması, Muhasebe ve Fi- nansman Dergisi, 39, 142-154
• Bates, T., ve Nucci, A. (1990) An Analysis of Small Business Size and Rate of Dis- continuance, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 90-102.
• Baum, J.A. ve Amburgey, T.L. (2000). Organizational Ecology. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, 304-326.
• tional Structure as an Antecedent Variable. Contemporary Management
• Research, 8(1).27-50.
• Child, J. (1973). Predicting and Understanding Organization Structure. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 168-185.
• Child, J. (1975) Managerial and Organization Factors Associated with Com- pany Performance-Part II, A Contingency Analysis, Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 12, 12-27.
• Cummings, C. (2013). Structure-Based Alliance Ambidexterity: An Empirical Study of the American Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Business and Management, 19 (3), 19-40
• Demir, H. ve Okan, T. (2009). Teknoloji, Örgüt Yapısı ve Performans Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(1), 57-72.
• Dennis, S.A., Ramsey, D., ve Turner, C. (2009). Dual or Duel: Co-CEOs and Firm Performance. The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 15(1), 1-25.
• Dil, E. (2014) Yaşlı ve Küçük: Örgütsel Ekoloji Kuramı Çerçevesinde Demog- rafik Süreçlere Dair Bir Araştırma, Çoruh Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi, Artvin Hopa. 1-12.
• Donaldson, L. (1996) For Positivist Organization Theory, Sage, London.
• Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., ve Huber, G. P. (1993) Fit, Equifinality, and Organi- zational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1196-1250.
• Erdil, O., Kalkan, A., ve Alparslan, A. M. (2010). Örgütsel Ekoloji Kuramından Stratejik Yönetim Anlayışına, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 12 (1), 17-31
• Erenel, F. (2015). Evolution of Organizational Niches: A Study on General and Spe- cialist Organizations. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12 (2), 611-625.
• Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R. ve Hannan, M. T. (1983). The Liability of Newness: Age Dependence in Organizational Death Rates, American Sociological Review, 48 (5), 692-710.
• Graham, M. E., ve Bansal, P. (2007). Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Corpo- rate Reputation: The Context of Airline Companies. Corporate Reputa- tion Review, 10 (3), 189-200.
• Habiboğlu, O. S. (2013). Örgütsel Çevrebilim ve Örgütsel Kopuşlar, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 12 (2), 37-61.
• Halabisky, D. (2006). The Growth Process in Firms: Job Creation by Firm Age. Ot- tawa : Industry, Canada.
• Hale, G., ve Long, C. (2006). What Determines Technological Spillovers of For- eign Direct Investment: Evidence from China. Economic Growth Center, Yale University, Center Discussion Paper No. 934, 1-31.
• Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(2), 247-266.
• Lin, C.Y. ve Chen, M.Y. (2007). Does Innovation Lead to Performance? An Em- pirical Study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management Research News, 30(2), 115- 132.
• Lin, H., Lee, Y. ve Tai, C. (2012). A Study on the Relationship Between Human Resource Management Strategies and Core Competencies. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4(3), 153-173.
• Loderer, C., ve Waelchli, U. (2009). Firm Age and Performance. Swiss Finance Institute, Working Papers Series. 1-56
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Re- search. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepre- neurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Avai- lable at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1496182
• Morton, N.A. ve Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the Fit between Organizational Structure and ERP: A Structural Contingency Theory Perspective. Inter- national Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 391-402.
• Naldi, L., ve Davidsson, P. (2014). Entrepreneurial Growth: The Role of Inter- national Knowledge Acquisition as Moderated by Firm Age. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 687-703.
• Oldham, G.R. ve Hackman, J.R. (1981). Relationships between Organization- al Structure and Employee Reactions: Comparing Alternative Frame- works. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 66-83.
• Ouimet, P., ve Zarutskie, R. (2014). Who Works for Startups? The Relation be- tween Firm Age, Employee Age, and Growth. Journal of Financial Eco- nomics, 112(3), 386-407.
• Özdaşlı, K. (2010). İşletmelerde Yenilikçi Örgüt Yapısı Oluşturmak: Çok Un- surlu Bir Model Önerisi, Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi,14(1), 93-110
• Pansiri, J. ve Temtime, Z. T. (2010). Linking Firm and Managers’ Characteris- tics to Perceived Critical Success Factors for Innovative Entrepreneurial Support. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(1), 45- 59.
• Pearse, N. J. (2010). Towards a Social Capital Theory of Resistance to Change. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 7(2), 163-175.
• ğü-Örgüt Yapısı İlişkisinin Yazınsal Açıdan Eleştirel Bir Değerlendir
• mesi, İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (2), 135-165.
• Shane, S. A. (1998). Making new Franchise Systems Work, Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 19 (7), 697-707.
• Situm, M. (2014). The Age and the Size of the Firm as Relevant Predictors for Bankruptcy, Journal of Applied Economics and Business, 2(1), 5-30.
• Stuart, T.E. (2000). Inter Organizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791-811.
• Swaminathan, A. (1996). Organizational Ecology: Neither Straightjacket Nor Big Tent. Administrative Science Quarterly; 41 (3), 543-550.
• Vlachvei, A., ve Notta, O. (2008). Firm Growth, Size and Age in Greek Firms. In Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Economics. 915-921
• Wilklund, J., ve Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-Based Resources, Entrepre- neurial Orientation, and the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Business. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307-1314.
• Yeloğlu, O. H. (2008). Örgütlerde Yapısal Stratejik Konfigürasyonlar: Koşul Ba- ğımlılık Kuramı, Konfigürasyon Yaklaşımı Bağlamında Örgüt Yapıları Üzerine Önermeler. Osmangazi Üni. İİBF Dergisi, 3(2), 155-170
• Yıldız, O., Bozkurt, Ö.Ç., Kalkan, A., ve Aycı, A. (2013). The Relationships Be- tween Technological Investment, Firm Size, Firm Age and The Growth Rate of Innovational Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Scienc- es, 99, 590-599.
• Zorlu, N. (2000). Etkili Kurumsal İmajda Halkla İlişkiler, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.