Spor Bilimleri Fakültelerinde Organizasyon Yapısı Mekanik mi, Organik mi?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Spor Bilimleri Fakültelerinde görev yapan akademik personelin kurumlarının örgütsel yapılarına ilişkin algılarını incelemek ve bu yapıları mekanistik veya organik olarak sınıflandırmaktır. Araştırmanın teorik temeli, Burns ve Stalker’ın örgütsel sınıflandırma modeline dayanmakta olup, spor bilimleri gibi dinamik alanlarda örgütsel etkinliğin, yapısal özelliklere göre önemli ölçüde farklılık gösterebileceği vurgulanmaktadır. Araştırmanın teorik gerekçesini, spor bilimleri alanında hızlı gelişmelerin ve disiplinler arası taleplerin ortaya çıkardığı değişimlere kurumların uyum sağlama ve yenilikçilik kapasiteleri üzerinde örgütsel yapıların etkisini daha iyi anlamak oluşturmuştur. Türkiye genelindeki çeşitli spor bilimleri fakültelerinde görev yapan 332 akademik personelden "Örgütsel Yapı Ölçeği–Üniversite Versiyonu" kullanılarak veri toplanmıştır. Veriler 2024 yılında toplanmıştır. Yapılan analiz sonucunda akademik personelin kurumlarını ağırlıklı olarak mekanistik yapıda algıladıkları; yüksek düzeyde karmaşıklık, merkezileşme ve biçimselleşmenin yanı sıra düşük düzeyde tabakalaşma özelliklerinin öne çıktığı belirlenmiştir. Bu bulgular, hızla gelişen bir akademik disiplinde, mekanistik yapıların yaygınlığının akademik yaratıcılık, örgütsel etkinlik ve uyum sağlama becerilerini nasıl etkileyebileceğine yönelik önemli teorik katkılar sunmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, yenilikçiliği, disiplinler arası iş birliğini ve kurumsal duyarlılığı teşvik etmek için daha organik ve esnek örgütsel modellere geçişin gerekliliğini vurgulayarak spor bilimleri alanındaki örgüt teorisi literatürüne önemli bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi
• Örgütsel yapı
• Mekanik ve organik örgüt

Is the Organizational Structure Faculties of Sport Sciences Mechanistic or Organic?

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the perceptions of academic staff working at Faculties of Sports Sciences regarding their institutions' organizational structures and to classify these structures as mechanistic or organic. The theoretical foundation of this research is based on Burns and Stalker’s organizational classification model, highlighting that organizational effectiveness can significantly vary according to structural characteristics in dynamic fields such as sports sciences. The theoretical rationale for this study arises from the need to better understand how organizational structures impact the adaptability and innovation capacity of academic institutions in response to rapid developments and interdisciplinary demands within the field of sports sciences. Data were collected from 332 academic staff across various sports sciences faculties in Turkey using the "Organizational Structure Scale–University Version." Data were collected in 2024. The analysis indicated that academic staff predominantly perceive their institutions as having a mechanistic structure characterized by high levels of complexity, centralization, and formalization, along with lower levels of stratification. These findings provide significant theoretical contributions by highlighting the prevalence of mechanistic structures that may affect academic creativity, organizational effectiveness, and adaptability in a rapidly evolving academic discipline. Therefore, this study emphasizes the necessity of transitioning toward more organic and flexible organizational models to promote innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and institutional responsiveness, thus potentially contributing substantially to the literature on organizational theory in sports sciences.

Keywords

• Faculty of Sport Sciences
• Organizational structure
• Mechanical and organic organization

References

1. Adams, C. M. (2003). The effects of school structure and trust on collective teacher efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University.
2. Agbim, K. C. (2013). The impact of organizational structure and leadership styles on innovation. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-0665663
3. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 271–301. https://doi.org/10.1506/VJR6-RP75-7GUX-XH0X
4. Aksay, K. (2015). Örgüt yapılarında yaşanan değişimler ve modern örgüt tiplerinin incelenmesi. Kent Akademisi, 8(3),111-128.
5. Alanoğlu, M., & Demirtaş, Z. (2020). Bürokratik okul yapısı ile müdür yönetim tarzları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48, 199-213. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.560610
6. Alavi, S., Abd. Wahab, D., Muhamad, N., & Arbab Shirani, B. (2014). Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6273-6295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.919420
7. Altunay, Ö. (2006). Örgüt yapısındaki değişimlerin örgüt kültürü üzerindeki etkilerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. (Yüksek lisans tezi), Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kütahya.
8. Ambrose, M. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295

9. Anderson, K. (2012). Examining relationships between enabling structures, academic optimism, and student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University.
10. Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1136-1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.003
11. Bourgeois, L. J., McAllister, D. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). The effects of different organizational environments upon decisions about organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 508–514. https://doi.org/10.5465/255732
12. Bozkuş, K. (2016). Örgüt yapısı ve okullar. Kesit Akademi Dergisi, 2(4), 236-260.
13. Brandy, D. A. (2008). The effect of school organizational structure on professional development transfer of training (Doctoral dissertation). Oakland University.
14. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1968). The management of innovation. Associated Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001
15. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00033.x
16. Csaszar, F. A. (2012). Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1969
17. Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization theory and design. Nelson Education Ltd.
18. Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5), 487–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.07.005
19. Erol, E., & Ordu, A. (2018). Organizational structure scale–University version. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 775-803. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.775
20. Gage III, C. Q. (2003). The meaning and measure of school mindfulness: An exploratory analysis. The Ohio State University.
21. George, J. R., & Bishop, L. K. (1971). Relationship of organizational structure and teacher personality characteristics to organizational climate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(4), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391766
22. Guldan, E. A. (2004). Enabling bureaucracy, faculty trust, and collective efficacy in selected catholic elementary schools. St. John's University (New York).
23. Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391213
24. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2015). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (S. Turan, Çev.). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. İçerli, L. (2009). Örgüt yapısı ve örgütsel adalet arasındaki ilişkiler (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
26. Jackson, C. K. (2007a). A little now for a lot later: A look at a Texas Advanced Placement incentive program. Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 591–639. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.45.3.591
27. Jackson, J. M. (2007b). An examination of the relationship between elementary school principals' perceptions of shared decision making and three organizational structures (Doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University.
28. Jogaratnam, G., & Tse, E. C. Y. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and the structuring of organizations: Performance evidence from the Asian hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110610681502
29. Kessler, S. R., Nixon, A. E., & Nord, W. R. (2017). Examining organic and mechanistic structures: Do we know as much as we thought? International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12109
30. Koçel, T. (2018). İşletme yöneticiliği (17. baskı). Beta Yayıncılık.
31. Lennon, P. A. (2010). The Relationship of bureaucratic structure to school climate: An exploratory factor Analysis of Construct Validity. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
32. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, O. C. (2013). Eğitim yönetimi (G. Arastaman, Çev.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
33. Mayerson, D. (2010). The relationship between school climate, trust, enabling structures, and perceived school effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John's University.
34. McGuigan, L. (2005). The role of enabling bureaucracy and academic optimism in academic achievement growth (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
35. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760600805816
36. McVey, D. (2009). Parsonian influence and the effect of school climate and bureaucracy on the perceived effectiveness in schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John's University, Jamaica, New York.
37. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.
38. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organization. Prentice-Hall, International Editions.
39. Mintzberg, H. (2015). Örgütler ve yapıları (A. Aypay, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
40. Miskel, C. (1979). Demographic characteristics, faculty attitudes, and school structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States, April 8–12.
41. Miskel, C. G. (1979). Organizational structures for schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 97–118.
42. Okpogba, D. (2011). Organizational structure, collegial trust, and college faculty teaching efficacy: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma.
43. Özcan, E. D. (2010). Algılanan örgüt yapısı ile iş tatmini arasındaki ilişkide kişilik özelliklerinin rolü ve bir araştırma (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
44. Pheysey, D. C., Payne, R. L. & Pugh, D. S. (1971). Influence of structure at organizational and group levels. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391289
45. Rhoads, D. (2009). Enabling structure and collective efficacy: A study of teacher perceptions in elementary divisions of American schools in Mexico (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall University, New Jersey.
46. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Örgütsel davranışın temelleri (İ. Erdem, Çev.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
47. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Örgütsel davranışın temelleri (İ. Erdem, Çev.). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
48. Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 462-478. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544071
49. Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785590
50. Spinella, F. A. (2003). The principal's role in new teacher retention (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA.
51. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
52. Sweetland, H. (2001). Authenticity and sense of power in enabling school structures: An empirical analysis. Education, 121(3), 581-588.
53. Volk, A. (2011). Teachers’ experiences with bureaucracy in loosely and tightly coupled systems: Impacts on professional practice. In 12th Annual University of Manitoba Education Graduate Student Symposium: Sharing Our Research (March 4–5). University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
54. Watts, D. (2009). Enabling school structure, mindfulness, and teacher empowerment: Test of a memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Alabama, United States.
55. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford University Press.
56. Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. P., Nielsen, B. B., & Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and performance: Strategy, structure, and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.12.001
57. Yıldırım, K. (2014). Mekanik-organik örgütsel yapı değişkenleri perspektifiyle 6528 sayılı kanunun okulların örgütsel yapısında yaratabileceği değişimin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 20(3), 359-391.