DİNAMİK ÇEVRELERDE ÖRGÜTSEL MİYOPİDEN KURTULMAK: ÖRGÜTSEL ÖĞRENME AÇISINDAN İNCELEME

Öz

Dinamik çevre koşullarında organizasyonların nasıl hayatta kalabilecekleri ve nasıl rekabet edecekleri uzun yıllardır tartışma konusu olmuştur. Dinamik çevrelerde organizasyonların ve yöneticilerin örgütsel öğrenmeyi sürdürmeleri firmanın rekabet avantajı kazanması ve bu avantajı sürdürmesi için hayati bir faktör olarak görülmektedir. Örgütsel öğrenme organizasyonun piyasadaki gelişmeleri yakalama kapasitesini arttırırken körlüğü de azaltmaktadır. Bu nedensel ilişkilerin, özellikle körlüğün azaltılması hayati olabilir. Bu nedenle çalışmanın temel amacı, değişen çevresel koşulların örgütsel öğrenme üzerindeki etkisini ve bu öğrenmenin örgütsel miyopiyi nasıl şekillendirdiğini incelemektir. Bu çalışma, bankacılık ve bilişim sektörlerinde çevresel dinamizmin örgütsel öğrenme ve örgütsel miyopi üzerindeki etkilerini keşfetmeyi amaçlamıştır. Katılımcılar, sektörde görev yapan orta ve alt kademe yöneticilerden oluşmuş, veriler kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Araştırmaya bankacılık ve bilişim sektörlerinden 481 kişi katılmıştır. Araştırmada analizler SPSS 25 ve PROCESS makro programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hipotezlerin testinde aracılık modelleri kullanılmıştır. Aracılık analizleri sonucunda hipotezlerimizin çoğunluğu desteklenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, çevresel dinamizm örgütsel öğrenmeyi pozitif yönde etkilemektedir. Ayrıca, örgütsel öğrenme düzeyi arttıkça örgütsel miyopinin azaldığı görülmüştür. Ancak, çevresel dinamizmin örgütsel miyopi üzerindeki doğrudan etkisi anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Bununla birlikte, örgütsel öğrenmenin aracılık etkisi değerlendirildiğinde, çevresel dinamizmin örgütsel miyopiyi dolaylı olarak etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuç, çevresel dinamizmin etkisinin örgütsel öğrenme yoluyla şekillendiğini ve dolaylı yoldan örgütsel miyopiyi etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırma, bankacılık ve bilişim sektörlerinde faaliyet gösteren kuruluşların dinamik çevre koşullarında başarılı olabilmeleri için öğrenme kapasitelerini geliştirmelerinin önemli olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Özellikle çevresel değişimlere ayak uydurabilmek ve körlükten kaçınmak için örgütsel öğrenmenin teşvik edilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu bulgular ışığında, sektördeki yöneticilere uzun vadeli strateji benimseyerek çevresel dinamizmi bir avantaj olarak değerlendirmeleri önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgütsel öğrenme
• Çevresel dinamizm
• Örgütsel miyopi
• Bankacılık sektörü
• Bilişim sektörü

ESCAPING ORGANIZATIONAL MYOPIA IN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS: AN EXAMINATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

Öz

How firms can survive and compete in dynamic environmental conditions has been debated for many years. In dynamic environments, it is vital for firms and managers to continue organizational learning to gain and maintain their competitive advantage. Organizational learning increases the firm's capacity to catch up with market developments and reduces myopia. These causal relationships, especially in reducing myopia, can be vital. Therefore, the study's main purpose is to examine the effect of changing environmental conditions on organizational learning and how this learning shapes organizational myopia. This study aimed to explore the effects of environmental dynamism on organizational learning and organizational myopia in the banking and IT sectors. The participants consisted of middle and lower-level managers working in the sector, and the data was collected using the convenience sampling method. 481 people from the banking and IT sectors participated in the study. The analyses in the study were carried out using SPSS 25 and PROCESS macro programs. Mediation models were used in the testing of the hypotheses. As a result of the mediation analyses, the majority of our hypotheses were supported. According to the findings, environmental dynamism positively affects organizational learning. In addition, it was observed that organizational myopia decreases as the level of organizational learning increases. However, the direct effect of environmental dynamism on organizational myopia was not found to be significant. However, when the mediation effect of organizational learning was evaluated, it was determined that environmental dynamism indirectly affects organizational myopia. This result reveals that the effect of environmental dynamism is shaped by organizational learning and indirectly affects organizational myopia. In conclusion, this research emphasizes that it is important for organizations operating in the banking and finance sectors to develop their learning capacities to be successful in dynamic environmental conditions. Organizational learning should be encouraged to keep up with environmental changes and avoid blindness. In light of these findings, it is recommended that managers in the sector evaluate environmental dynamism as an advantage by adopting long-term strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organizational learning
• Environmental dynamism
• Organisational Myopia
• Banking sector
• IT sector

Kaynakça

1. Aktas, E., Çiçek, I. ve Kıyakcı, M. (2011). The Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Efficiency: The Moderating Role of Organizational Environment and CEO Values. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1560-1573.
2. Argyris, C. ve Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. Addison-Wesley, London.
3. Aslan, M. ve Uru, F. O. (2021). Çevresel Dinamizmin ve Çevresel Olumsuzluğun Düzenleyici Rolü Altında Tepe Yönetim Profilinin ve Firma Yapısının Sezgiye Dayalı Stratejik Karar Almaya Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 12(1), 173-195, https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2021.317
4. Augier, M., ve Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities and the Role of Managers in Business Strategy and Economic Performance. Organization Science, 20(2), 410–421.
5. Azadegan, A., Pankaj, P., Abouzar, Z. ve Linderman, K. (2013). The Effect of Environmental Complexity and Environmental Dynamism in Lean Practices. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 31(4), 193-212.
6. Bal, H. (2001). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntem ve Teknikleri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Basımevi.
7. Balasubramanian, N., Ye, Y., ve Xu, M. (2022). Substituting Human Decision-Making With Machine Learning: Implications For Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 47(3), 448-465.
8. Basım, N., Şeşen, H., ve Meydan, C. H. (2009). Öğrenen Örgüt Algısının Örgüt İçi Girişimciliğe Etkisi: Kamuda Bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 64(03), 27-44.

9. Bıyıkbeyi, T. (2023). Örgütsel Körlüğün Öncülleri ve Ardılları. Avcı, E., Kara, A. Kaya (Ed.) Örgütsel Davranış Araştırmaları içinde, Eğitim Yayınevi.
10. Boyd, K. (2013). Nearsightedness: What is Myopia? https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/myopia-nearsightedness (E.T. 25.02.2017).
11. Bucko, R.L. (1994). Conditions for Change. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(5), 4-6.
12. Cannon, J. N., Hu, B., Lee, J. J., ve Yang, D. (2020). The Effect of International Takeover Laws on Corporate Resource Adjustments: Market Discipline and/or Managerial Myopia? Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9), 1443–1477.
13. Catino, M. (2013). Organizational Myopia: Problems of Rationality and Foresight in Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Chiva, R., Alegre, J. ve Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring Organisational Learning Capability Among The Workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 224-242.
15. Coutts, J. J. ve Hayes, A. F. (2023). Questions of Value, Questions of Magnitude: An Exploration and Application of Methods for Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 3772–3785 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01988-0
16. Cyert, R. M. ve March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
17. Çeçe, F., ve Bayraktar, O. (2023). Örgütsel Öğrenmenin İş Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisinde Örgütsel Desteğin Aracılık Rolü. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 495-522. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.1314675
18. Çelik, V., Kitapçı, H., & Karabat, B. Ç. (2022). Örgütsel Öğrenme Kapasitesi, Çift Yeteneklilik, Çevre Dinamizmi ve Yenilik Performansı İlişkisi. Bilgi Yönetimi, 5(2), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1062770
19. Dill, W. R., (1958). Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409-443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390794
20. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 34(1), 56-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269430
21. Farrell, M.A. (2000). Developing A Market-Oriented Learning Organisation. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289620002500205
22. Ford, C.M. ve Ogilvie, D. (1996). The Role of Creative Action in Organizational Learning and Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819610107321
23. Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C. ve Huber, G. P. (1993). The Impact of Upper-Echelon Diversity on Organizational Performance, George P. Huber ve William H. Glick (Ed.) Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights For Improving Performance. içinde, ss. 176–214. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Goll, I., Johnson, N.B. ve Rasheed, A.A. (2007). Knowledge Capability, Strategic Change, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of the Environment. Management Decision, 45(2), 161-179.
25. Gomez, J., Cespedes, L., ve Cabrera, V. (2005). Organizational Learning Capability: A Proposal of Measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002
26. Gürbüz, S. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Aracı, Düzenleyici ve Durumsal Etki Analizleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
27. Gürçay, G. (2019). Örgütsel Körlük, Silo Sendromu ve Örgüt İklimi İlişkisi: İnşaat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
28. Hair J. F. Jr., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L. ve Black W. C. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. Macmillan.
29. Harrison, D. ve Waluszewski, D. (2008). The Development of a User Network as a Way to Re-Launch an Unwanted Product. Research Policy, 37(1), 115-130.
30. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
31. Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K. ve Zhou, Y. (2019). Paternalistic Leadership and Innovation: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3), 562-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2018-0141
32. Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
33. Igartua, J.-J., ve Hayes, A. F. (2021). Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: Concepts, Computations, and Some Common Confusions. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, e49
34. Inthavong, P., Rehman, K.U., Masood, K., Shaukat, Z., Hnydiuk-Stefan, A. ve Ray, S. (2023). Impact of Organizational Learning on Sustainable Firm Performance: Intervening Effect of Organizational Networking and Innovation. Heliyon, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16177
35. Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., ve Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic Leadership For Exploration and Exploitation: The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008
36. Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. ve Volberda, H.W. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 22(11). 1661-1674.
37. Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J. ve Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational Learning and Compensation Strategies: Evidence From The Spanish Chemical Industry. Human Resource Management, 44(3). 279-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20071
38. Kamaşak, R., Yavuz, M., ve Altuntaş, G. (2016). Is The Relationship Between Innovation Performance and Knowledge Management Contingent on Environmental Dynamism and Learning Capability? Evidence From A Turbulent Market. Business Research, 9, 229-253.
39. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance; Mastering The Challenges of Strategy Management and Careers in The 1990s. London: Routledge.
40. Kim, K. H. (2005). The Relation Among Fit Indexes, Power, and Sample Size in Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 368-390.
41. Kovach, J.J., Hora, M., Manikas, A. ve Patel, P.C. (2015). Firm Performance in Dynamic Environments: The Role of Operational Slack and Operational Scope. Journal of Operations Management, 37, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.04.002
42. Kyrdoda, Y., Balzano, M., ve Marzi, G. (2023). Learn to Survive Crises: The Role of Firm Resilience, Innovation Capabilities and Environmental Dynamism. Technology in Society. 74, 102285.
43. Lee, E.-S. ve Song, D.-W. (2015). The Effect of Shipping Knowledge and Absorptive Capacity on Organizational Innovation and Logistics Value. International Journal of Logistics Management. 26(2), 218-237, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-01-2013-0011.
44. Levinthal, D. A., ve March, J. G. (1993). The Myopia Of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
45. Li, D. Y., ve Liu, J. (2014). Dynamic Capabilities, Environmental Dynamism, and Competitive Advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2793-2799.
46. Liang, L ve Li, Y., (2024). How Does Organizational Resilience Promote Firm Growth? The Mediating Role of Strategic Change and Managerial Myopia. Journal of Business Research, 177, 114636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114636
47. Liao, S.H. ve Wu, C.C. (2010). System Perspective of Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, and Organizational Innovation. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1096-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.109
48. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
49. Mason, R. M. (2005). Avoiding epistemological myopia. In Inquiring organizations: Moving from knowledge management to wisdom (pp. 173-194). IGI Global.
50. Mcgowan, M. K. ve Madey, G. R. (1998). The Influence of Organization Structure and Organizational Learning Factors on the Extent of EDI Implementation in U.S. Firms. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 11(3), 17–27,
51. Miller, C.C., Ogilvie, D.T. ve Glick, W.H. (2006). Assessing the External Environment: an Enrichment of the Archival Tradition. Ketchen, D.J. ve Bergh, D.D. (Ed). Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, içinde, ss. 97-122. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
52. Mohammad, H. I. (2019). Mediating Effect of Organizational Learning and Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism on The Relationship Between Strategic Change and Firm Performance. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(2), 275-297.
53. Oh, S.-Y. ve Kim, S. (2022). Effects of Inter- and Intra-Organizational Learning Activities on SME Innovation: The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(5), 1187-1206. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2021-0093
54. Özgül, B., ve Tarhan Mengi, B. (2018). İşletme Körlüğü ve Çözüm Önerisi Olarak Güvenilir Danışman İç Denetim. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 54, 125–138. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mdbakis/issue/63891/967189
55. Park, T. ve Ryu, D. (2015). Drivers of Technology Commercialization and Performance in Smes: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism. Management Decision, 52(2), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2014-0143
56. Petrus, B. (2019). Management Sciences, Environmental Dynamism: The Implications for Operational and Dynamic Capabilities Effects. Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, 24(1), 28-36.
57. Preacher, K. J. ve Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
58. Rojo, A., Stevenson, M., Lloréns Montes, F.J. ve Perez-Arostegui, M.N. (2018). Supply Chain Flexibility in Dynamic Environments: The Enabling Role of Operational Absorptive Capacity and Organisational Learning. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3). 636-666. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2016-0450
59. Rosenzweig, E.D. (2009). A Contingent View of E-Collaboration and Performance in Manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management, 27(6), 462-478.
60. Sato, H. (2015). Organizational change and temporal myopia. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 14(6), 323-333. https://doi.org/10.7880/abas.14.323
61. Seymen, O. A., Kılıç, T., ve Kinter, O. (2016). Örgütsel Körlüğün (Örgüt Miyopisi) Ayrıntılı Kavramsal Analizi ve Ölçümü: Geliştirilen Bir Ölçek Yardımıyla Değerlendirme. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Social Sciences Journal, 1, 212-222.
62. Sheng, X., Guo, S., ve Chang, X. (2022). Managerial Myopia and Firm Productivity: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 49, 103083.
63. Soin, K. ve Collier, P. (2013). Risk and Risk Management in Management Accounting and Control. Management Accounting Research, 24(2), 82-87.
64. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
65. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Micro Foundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 1319-1350, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.
66. Tunçdoğan, A., Bosch, F. V. D. ve Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory Focus as A Psychological Micro-Foundation of Leaders' Exploration And Exploitation Activities. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 838-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.004
67. Uysal, İ., ve Kılıç, A. (2022). Normal Dağılım İkilemi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 12(1), 220-248. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.962653
68. Vanpoucke, E., Vereecke, A. ve Wetzels, M. (2014). Developing Supplier Integration Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7-8), 446-461.
69. Vithessonthi, C. ve Thoumrungroje, A. (2011). Strategic Change and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effect of Organizational Learning. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 5(2), 194-210.
70. Wang, L., Yeung, J.H.Y. ve Zhang, M. (2011). The Impact of Trust and Contract on Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(1), 114-122.
71. Weber Y. ve Tarba S.Y. (2014). Strategic Agility: A State of the Art. California Management Review, 56(3), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.5
72. Yang, C.C. (2016). Leveraging Logistics Learning Capability to Enable Logistics Service Capabilities and Performance for International Distribution Center Operators in Taiwan. International Journal of Logistics Management, 27(2), 284-308, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2014-0157.
73. Zahra, S.A. ve George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2). 185-203.
74. Zhong, C., Huang, R., Duan, Y., Sunguo, T. ve Dello S. A. (2024). Exploring the Impacts of Knowledge Recombination on Firms’ Breakthrough Innovation: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(3), 698-723. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2022-0623