MATRİS - FONKSİYONEL ÖRGÜT YAPILARININ BÜYÜME STRATEJİLERİ İLE OLAN İLİŞKİSİ

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı örgüt yapıları ile örgütlerin büyüme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek, organik ve inorganik büyüme stratejilerinin fonksiyonel ve matris örgüt yapıları üzerinde bir değişime neden olup olmadığını ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma evrenini ISO 500 listesinde yer alan şirketler, örneklemini bu şirketler içinde net satışlarında 2015-2020 yılları boyunca artış gösterdiği saptanan 24 şirket oluşturmaktadır. Veri analiz yöntemi olarak nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman analizi kullanılmıştır. Örgütlere ilişkin kamuya açık kurumsal duyurular, web sayfalarında yer alan belgeler, konu oldukları kitaplar ve haberleri kapsayan 683 kurumsal doküman incelenmiştir. Yapılan inceleme sonucunda bu örneklemden 11 şirketin büyüme sürecinde örgüt yapısı değişikliğine gittiği belirlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda inorganik büyüme stratejisi uygulayan örgütlerin fonksiyonel örgüt yapısından matris örgüt yapısına geçtikleri, organik büyüme stratejisi uygulayanların ise fonksiyonel örgüt yapısını korudukları saptanmıştır.

Keywords

• Örgüt Yapısı
• Büyüme Stratejileri
• Matris Yapı

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATRIX - FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND GROWTH STRATEGIES

Abstract

The aim of the study is to examine the relationship between organizational structures and the growth strategies of organizations, and to reveal whether organic and inorganic growth strategies cause a change on functional and matrix organizational structures.The research universe consists of the companies included in the ISO 500 list, and the sample consists of 24 companies that have been found to have increased their net sales during 2015-2020.Document analysis, one of the qualitative research methods, was used as the data analysis method. The data were obtained using the document analysis and 683 corporate documents including public corporate announcements about organizations, documents on their web pages, books and news, were analyzed. As a result of the analysis, 11 organizations that made a growth strategy decision within the scope of 2015-2020 were determined and their organizational structure change was examined. As a result of the research, it was determined that organizations appliying an inorganic growth strategy transformed to matrix organization structure,and those who applied organic growth strategy preserved their functional organizational structure.

Keywords

• Organization Structure
• Growth Strategies
• Matrix Structure

References

1. Achcaoucaou, F., Bernardo, M. ve Castan, J. M. (2009). Determinants of organizational structures: An empirical study. Review of International Comparative Management, 10(3), 566-577.
2. Ahmady, G. A., Mehrpour, M. ve Nikooravesh, A. (2016). Organizational structure. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 455-462.
3. Agnihotri, A. (2014). Corporate reputation based theory of choice between organic, hybrid and inorganic growth strategies. An International Journal, 19(3), 247-259.
4. Andersson, J., Zbirenko, A. ve Medina, A. (2014). Effect of organizational structure, leadership and communication on efficiency and productivity-A qualitative study of a public health-care organization. (Bachelor thesis). UMEA University, Sweden.
5. Ansoff, H. I., ve Mc Donnell, E. J. (1990). Implanting Strategic Management (2nd Edition ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
6. Ambrose, M. L., ve Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295-305.
7. Bogdan, R. C. ve Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Pearson.
8. Bruner, ML. (2002). Taming `wild’ capitalism. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 167-184.

9. Certo, S. C., ve Peter, P. J. (1995). The strategic management process. Chicago: Irwin.
10. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11. Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization theory and design. USA: Cengage learning.
12. Decanio, S. J., Dibble C., Amir-Atefi, K. (2000). The importance of organizational structure for the adoption of innovations, Management Science, 46, 1285-1299.
13. De San, J. (2014). Proposal of a model of organizational design to manage drinking water agencies in Mexico City. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(11), 169-177.
14. Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st Century. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
15. Egelhoff, W. G. (2020) How a flexible matrix structure could create ambidexterity at the macro level of large, complex organizations like MNCs. Management International Review, 60, 459-484.
16. Englehardt, C. S., & Simmons, P. R. (2002). Organizational flexibility for a changing world. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 9(1), 39-47.
17. Funminiyi, K. A. (2018). Impact of organisational structure on employee engagement: Evidence from North Central Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 4(8), 579-589.
18. Guba, E. ve Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Jones, T. (2012). Growth champions: The battle for sustained innovation leadership. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
20. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., ve Whittington, R., (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: Texts and cases (8th Edition). United Kingdom: Prentice Hall International.
21. Kavale, S. (2012). The connection between strategy and structure. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 1(6), 60-70.
22. King, DR, Slotegraaf, R ve Kesner, I. (2008). Performance implications of firm resource interactions in the acquisition of R&D-intensive firms, Organization Science, 19(2), 327 340.
23. Kolodny, H. F. (1979) Evolution to a matrix organization, Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 543 – 553.
24. Kor, Y. ve Mahoney, J. (2000). Penrose’s resource-based approach: The process and product of research creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 109-139.
25. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. International Journal of Scholarly Academic, Intellectual Diversity, 14(1), 1-8.
26. Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structures in 5‟s: a synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26 (3), 322-341.
27. Oh J., Johnston W. (2021) How post-merger integration duration affects merger outcomes, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 36(5), 807-820.
28. Park, K. ve Jang, S.C. (2011). Mergers and acquisitions and firm growth: Investigating restaurant firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 141–149.
29. Pearce, J. A. ve Robinson, R. B. (2020). Stratejik yönetim, geliştirme, uygulama ve kontrol. Mehmet Barca (Ed.), Nobel Yayıncılık.
30. Robbins, S. S., Stylianou A. C. (1999). Post-merger systems integration: the impact on IS capabilities, Information & Management, 36 (4), 205 – 212.
31. Sabharwal, S. (2013). Alternative growth strategies for small business. Erişim adresi http://www.pdfio.net/k-37671922.html.
32. Segal, S., Guthrie J., Dumay J. (2021). Stakeholder and merger and acquisition research: a structured literature review, Accounting & Finance, 61(2), 2935-2964.
33. Tworek, K., Walecka-Jankowska, K., ve Zgrzywa-Ziemak, A. (2019). Towards organisational simplexity-a simple structure in a complex environment. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 11(4), 43- 53.
34. Ülgen H., Mirze K. (2010). İşletmelerde stratejik yönetim. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
35. Yıldırım A., Şimşek H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
36. Zaki M., Hussien H.S., Sanad H. S., El-Khoriby S. S. (2015). Analyzing organizational structure for contracting firms’ of classification A, Journal of Engineering Sciences, 43(3), 403-428.