Dinamik Çevre Koşullarında Örgütsel Çift Yönlülüğün Firma Performansına Etkisi

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı örgütsel çift yönlülüğün firma performansına etkisinin ve söz konusu ilişkide çevresel dinamizmin moderatör rolünün tespit edilmesidir. Araştırma lojistik sektöründeki 340 üst ve orta kademe yöneticinin katılımı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın veri toplama süreci çevrimiçi anket formları üzerinden gerçekleştirilmektedir. Verilerin analizinde öncelikle faktör ve güvenilirlik analizleri, tanımlayıcı istatistikler, korelasyon analizi ve moderatör etki analizi yapılmıştır. Verilerin analizi SPSS 25 paket programı ve SPSS Process 2.16 makrosu aracılığı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda örgütsel çift yönlülüğün firma performansını olumlu yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca çift yönlülüğün firma performansına etkisinde çevresel dinamizmin aracılık rolü olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, çevresel dinamizm düzeyi düşük olan firmalarda etki (0,7214) daha yüksek iken, çevresel dinamizm düzeyi yüksek olan firmalarda etki (0,5464) daha düşük bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular, çevresel dinamizmin firma performansı üzerindeki etkisinin çevresel dinamizm düzeyine bağlı olarak farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Araştırma sonucunda yöneticilere, çevresel bağlamda uygulanabilecek stratejiler hakkında öneriler sunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük
• Firma Performansı
• Çevresel Dinamizm

The Effect of Organizational Ambidexterity on Firm Performance under Dynamic Environmental Conditions

Abstract

The research aims to determine the effect of organizational ambidexterity on firm performance and the moderating role of environmental dynamism in this relationship. The research was conducted with the participation of 340 upper and middle-level managers in the logistics sector. The data collection process of the research is carried out through online survey forms. In the analysis of the data, factor and reliability analyses, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and moderator effect analysis are conducted. The data analysis uses SPSS 25 software and SPSS Process 2.16 macro. The research findings indicate that organizational ambidexterity positively influences firm performance. Furthermore, it is found that dynamic environmental conditions mediate the relationship between ambidexterity and firm performance. According to the research results, the impact is higher (0.7214) in firms with low dynamic environmental conditions. In contrast, it is lower (0.5464) in firms with high dynamic environmental conditions. These findings demonstrate that the influence of dynamic environmental conditions on firm performance varies depending on the level of dynamic environmental conditions. The research provides recommendations to managers regarding strategies that can be applied in the environmental context.

Keywords

• Organizational Ambidexterity
• Firm Performance
• Environmental Dynamism

References

1. Abeysekara, N., Wang, H., & Kuruppuarachchi, D. (2019). Effect of Supply-chain Resilience on Firm Performance and Competitive Advantage: A Study of The Sri Lankan Apparel Industry. Business Process Management Journal, 25(7), 1673– 1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2018-0241
2. Acaray, A. (2018). Güçlendirme İklimi, Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük ve Firma Yenilikçiliği Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi: Bankacılık Sektöründe Bir Çalışma. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 16(4), 216-236. Doi: 10.11611/yead.452483
3. Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S. & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Unlearning in New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00182.x
4. Akman, G., Özkan, C. & Eriş, H. (2008). Strateji Odaklılık ve Firma Stratejilerinin Firma Performansına Etkisinin Analizi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(13), 93-116.
5. Aubé, C., Francoeur, C., Sponem, S. & Séguin, M. (2021). Ethical Leadership and Corporate Board Effectiveness: The Role of Team Reflexivity and Environmental Dynamism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(4), 288. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000155
6. Barney, J. B. & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The Resource-Based View: Origins and Implications. M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman & Harrison, J.S. (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (124-188). Blackwell Publishing.
7. Birkinshaw, J. & C. Gibson. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55.
8. Boyraz, A. M., & Özutku, H. (2019). Yüksek Performanslı Çalışma Sistemlerinin Algılanan Örgütsel Performans ve Finansal Performansa Etkisi: Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Istanbul Business Research, 48(2), 248-284. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2019.48.0008

9. Božič, K. & Dimovski, V. (2019). Business Intelligence and Analytics Use, Innovation Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(4), 101578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.101578
10. Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A. & Kailer, N. (2021). Organizational Ambidexterity and Competitive Advantage: The Role of Strategic Agility in the Exploration-Exploitation Paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003
11. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. & Schultz, R. L. (1994). Implementing Strategic Missions: Effective Strategic, Structural, and Tactical Choices. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 481-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00627.x
12. Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., Günsel, A., & İlhan, Ö. Ö. (2018). Keşifsel ve Geliştirici Yeteneğe Dayalı Çift Yönlülük: Dönüşümcü liderlik, Çift Yönlülük, Firma Yenilikçiliği Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(1), 137-150.
13. De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. T. & Dimov, D. (2013). Shedding New Light on the Relationship Between Contextual Ambidexterity and Firm Performance: An Investigation of Internal Contingencies. Technovation, 33(4-5), 119-132. 10.1016/j.technovation.2012.12.002
14. Deng, X., Guo, X., Wu, Y. J. & Chen, M. (2021). Perceived Environmental Dynamism Promotes Entrepreneurial Team Member’s Innovation: Explanations Based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2033. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042033
15. Dess, G. G. & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080
16. Dess, G. G. & Robinson, J. R. B. (1984). Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures: The Case of the Privately-Held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050306
17. Dill, W. R. (1958). Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409-443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390794
18. Do, H., Budhwar, P., Shipton, H., Nguyen, H. D. & Nguyen, B. (2022). Building Organizational Resilience, Innovation Through Resource-Based Management Initiatives, Organizational Learning and Environmental Dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 141, 808-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.090
19. Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A. & Meissner, D. (2020). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: Assessment Approaches and Empirical Evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 676-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0560-y
20. Duncan, R. (1976). The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation. R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy & D. Sleven (Eds.), The Management of Organization (167-188). New York: North Holland.
21. Ellinger, A. E., Ellinger, A. D. & Keller, S. B. (2002). Logitics Managers' Learning Environments and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 23, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2002.tb00014.x
22. Forliano, C., Ferraris, A., Bivona, E. & Couturier, J. (2022). Pouring New Wine into Old Bottles: A Dynamic Perspective of the Interplay Among Environmental Dynamism, Capabilities Development, and Performance. Journal of Business Research, 142, 448-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.065
23. Fu, N., Ma, Q., Bosak, J. & Flood, P. (2015). Exploring the Relationships Between HPWS, Organizational Ambidexterity and Firm Performance in Chinese Professional Service Firms. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 6(1), 52-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-09-2014-0029
24. Geerts, A., Blındenbach-Driessen, F. & Gemmel, P. (2010). Achieving a Balance Between Exploration and Exploitation in Service Firms: A Longitudinal Study. Proceedings, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2010.54493894
25. George, D. & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS For Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 Update (10a Ed.). Pearson. https://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/385/394732/george4answers.pdf
26. Gibson C.B. ve Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
27. Gökhan, E. N. (2023). The Effect of Supply Chain Agility and Supply Chain Resilience on Firm Performance: A Study of The Marmara Organized Industrial Zones. [Doktora Tezi]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi.
28. Günsel, A., Altındağ, E., Kılıç Keçeli, S., Kitapçı, H. & Hızıroğlu, M. (2018). Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Networking. Kybernetes, 47(1), 186-207. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0057
29. Hair J. F. Jr., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L. & Black W. C. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. Macmillan.
30. Halevi, M. Y., Carmeli, A. & Brueller, N. N. (2015). Ambidexterity in SBUs: TMT Behavioral Integration and Environmental Dynamism. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21665
31. Han, M. & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic Ambidexterity and Performance in International New Ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 25(4), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.84
32. Han, M. (2007). Achieving Superior Internationalization Through Strategic Ambidexterity. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15(1), 43-77. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495807000046
33. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, Conditional, and Moderated Moderated Mediation: Quantification, Inference, and Interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
34. He, Z. & P. Wong. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034750
35. Hızıroğlu, M. & Bağış, M. (2015). Yenilikçi Kobi’lerin Uluslararasılaşması: Araştırmacı Yenilikçilik ve Fırsatçı Yenilikçilik Arasındaki Denge Nasıl Kuruluyor?. 23. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Muğla.
36. Hiebl, M. R. W. (2015). Family Involvement and Organizational Ambidexterity in Later-Generation Family Businesses: A Framework for Further Investigation. Management Decision, 53(5), 1061-1082. DOI: 10.1108/MD-04-2014-0191
37. Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K. & 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
38. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A. & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, And Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20110640
39. Jansen, J. J., Vera, D. & 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
40. Jansen, J. J., Volberda, H. W. & van Den Bosch, F. A. (2005). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Environmental and Organizational Antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396721
41. Kılıç Keçeli, S. (2015). Dinamik Bir Yetenek Olarak Stratejik Çift Yönlülük ve Firma Performansı: Örgüt Bağlamındaki Davranışsal Öncülleri ve Şebekeleşmenin Moderatör Etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Kocaeli Üniversitesi.
42. Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N. & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the Antecedents of Ambidexterity: Exploration and Exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003
43. Li, C. R., Lin, C. J. & Chu, C. P. (2008). The Nature of Market Orientation and the Ambidexterity of Innovations. Management Decision, 46(7), 1002-1026. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810890186
44. Liang, H., Wang, N. & Xue, Y. (2022). Juggling Information Technology (IT) Exploration and Exploitation: A Proportional Balance View of IT Ambidexterity. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1386-1402. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1105
45. Lubatkin, M., Şimşek, H. Z., Ling, Y. & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
46. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
47. Mathias, B. D. (2014). Exploration, Exploitation, Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Early Stage Ventures and SMEs (Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy (289-317). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-067X20140000014009
48. Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-Making and Environment: The Third Link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2486083
49. O'Reilly III, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22.
50. Peng, M. Y. -P., Lin, K. -H., Peng, D. L. & Chen, P. (2019). Linking Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: The Drivers of Sustainability in High-Tech Firms. Sustainability, 11, 3931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143931
51. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J. & López-Gamero, M. D. (2021). The Microfoundations of Organizational Ambidexterity: A Systematic Review of Individual Ambidexterity Through a Multilevel Framework. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(4), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711
52. Porter, E. M. (1991). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121008
53. Prange, C. & Verdier, S. (2011). Dynamic Capabilities, Internationalization Processes and Performance. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 126-133. Doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.024
54. Preacher, K. J. & 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
55. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
56. Seo, E. H., Kim, C. Y. & Kim, K. (2020). A Study on the Mechanisms Linking Environmental Dynamism to Innovation Performance. Sustainability, 12(23), 9999. https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/su12239999
57. Severgnini, E., Vieira, V. A. & Galdamez, E. V. C. (2018). The Indirect Effects of Performance Measurement System and Organizational Ambidexterity on Performance. Business Process Management Journal, 24(5), 1176-1199. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0159
58. Sharma, M., Kumar, A., Luthra, S., Joshi, S. & Upadhyay, A. (2022). The Impact of Environmental Dynamism on Low‐Carbon Practices and Digital Supply Chain Networks to Enhance Sustainable Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1776-1788. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2983
59. Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information Technology, Knowledge Management and Environmental Dynamism as Drivers of Innovation Ambidexterity: A Study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824-849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
60. Stede, W. A. V. D., Chow, C. W., & Lin, T. W. (2006). Strategy, Choice of Performance Measures, and Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 18(1), 185-205.
61. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th Ed.). Pearson.
62. Tamayo-Torres, J., Leopoldo, G. & Antonia, R. (2014). The Relationship Between Exploration and Exploitation Strategies, Manufacturing Flexibility and Organizational Learning: An Empirical Comparison Between Non-Iso and Iso Certified Firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 232, 72-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.040
63. Tamayo-Torres, J., Roehrich, J. K. & Lewis, M. A. (2017). Ambidexterity, Performance and Environmental Dynamism. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(3), 282-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0378
64. Tsai, K. H. and Yang, S. Y. (2013). Firm Innovativeness and Business Performance: The Joint Moderating Effects of Market Turbulence and Competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1279-1294.
65. Tunçdoğan, A., Bosch, F. V. D. & 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
66. Türkcan, H. (2022). Endüstri 4.0 Bileşenlerinin Firma Performansı ve Rekabet Avantajı ile İlişkisi. Doktora Tezi, Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi.
67. Ürü, F. O. & Ünsal, A. A. (2022). KOBİ’lerde Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük, Dijital Dönüşüm, Rekabet Avantajı, Stratejik Çeviklik ve Çevresel Olumsuzluk Arasındaki İlişkiler. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(4), 3238-3258. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2022.1560
68. Venkatraman, V. & Ramanujam V. (1986). Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.2307/258398
69. Vij, S. & Bedi, H. S. (2016). Are Subjective Business Performance Measures Justified?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(5), 603-621. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2014-0196
70. Wamba, S. F., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. & Akter, S. (2020). The Performance Effects of Big Data Analytics and Supply Chain Ambidexterity: The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism. International Journal of Production Economics, 222, 107498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.019
71. Wei, Z., Zhao, J. & Zhang, C. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity, Market Orientation, and Firm Performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, 134-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.06.001
72. Wenke, K., Zapkau, F. B. & Schwens, C. (2021). Too Small to Do It All? A Meta-Analysis on the Relative Relationships of Exploration, Exploitation, and Ambidexterity with SME Performance. Journal of Business Research, 132, 653-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.018
73. Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
74. Zhang, F., Chen, J. & L. Zhu, (2023). How Does Environmental Dynamism Impact Green Process Innovation? A Supply Chain Cooperation Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(2), 509-522. Doi: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3046711
75. Zhen, J., Cao, C., Quio, H. & Xie, Z., (2021). Impact of Organizational Inertia on Organizational Agility: The Role of IT Ambidexterity. Information Technology and Management, 22(4), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00324-w