An Investigation of Mediator Roles and the Effects of Learning Organization Approach and Intellectual Capital on Organizational Ambidexterity and Organizations’ Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Comparison of the Service and Production Sectors

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to investigate mediator roles and the effect of a learning organization approach and intellectual capital on organizational ambidexterity and entrepreneurial orientation for the service and production sectors. Snowball and judgemental sampling was used and an online survey form was created as a data collection tool. The data collection process took place between April 5 2019 and June 7 2019. The sample included 378 service and 324 production sector participants. SPSS 21, AMOS 20 and PROCESS 3.1 programs were used for data analysis. In the results of the study, it is concluded that intellectual capital has a partial mediator role in the impact of a learning organization on organizational ambidexterity and the impact value is higher in the production sector. Organizational
ambidexterity and intellectual capital have a partial mediator role in the impact of a learning organization on entrepreneurial orientation and the impact values are also higher in the production sector. Finally organizational ambidexterity has a partial mediator role in the impact of intellectual capital on entrepreneurial orientation and the impact values are higher in the service sector. When evaluated in terms of total effects, it was determined that the impact coefficients for the production sector were higher in all research models.

Keywords

• Learning Organization
• Intellectual Capital
• Organizational Ambidexterity
• Entrepreneurial Orientation
• Mediator Role

References

1. Antoncic, B., and Hisrich, R.D. (2004). Corporate Entrepreneurial Contingencies and Organizational Wealth Creation, The Journal of Management Development, 23(5/6), 518–550. https://doi/10.1108/02621710410541114.
2. Arıkboğa, Ş. (2003). Entelektüel Sermaye. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
3. Atak, M. ve Atik, İ. (2007). Örgütlerde Sürekli Eğitimin Önemi ve Öğrenen Örgüt Oluşturma Sürecine Etkisi, Havacılık ve Uzay Teknolojileri Dergisi, 3(1), 63-70.
4. Attar, M. (2014). Üst Düzey Yöneticilerin Liderlik Özelliklerinin Örgütsel Ustalık Düzeyine Etkisi: Türk Bankacılık Sektörü Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Selçuk Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi,Konya),http://acikerisimarsiv.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/5909’den erişildi.
5. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity in new product innovation, Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61−83. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30166552
6. Baron, R.M., and Kenny, D.A. (1986). The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
7. Bayam, B.Y. (2016). Örgütsel Öğrenme Sürecinde, Örgüt Kültürünün, Çalışanların Öğrenen Örgüt Algılarına Etkisi: Güreş Group, (Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Manisa),https://tezarsivi.com/orgutsel-ogrenme-surecinde-orgut-kulturunun-calisanlarin-ogrenen-orgut-algilarina-etkisi-gures-group ‘den erişildi.
8. Benner, M.J., and Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. https://doi/10.2307/30040711

9. Bierly, P., Damanpour, F., and Santoro, M. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00829.x
10. Bodwell, W. and Chermark, T.J. (2012). Organizational Ambidexterity: Integrating Deliberate and Emergent Strategy with Scenario Planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.004
11. Büyükozan, G. (2002). Entelektüel Sermaye Yönetimi, KalDer Forum Dergisi, 2(6), 35-44.
12. Cai, L., Zhu, X.M., and Liu, Y. (2011). Study on the impact of EO on resource acquisition, Studies in Science of Science, 29(4), 601–609. Retrieved from: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-KXYJ201104016.htm
13. Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Esposito, E., and Shashi. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 141,172–194. https://doi/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.014
14. Chen, J., Zhu. Z. and Xie, H.Y. (2004). Measuring Intellectual Capital: A New Model And Empirical Study, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410513003
15. Covin, J., and Miles, M. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurial and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47-63.
16. Çömlek, O., Kitapçı, H., Çelik, V., and Özşahin, M. (2012). The effects of organizational learning capacity on firm innovative performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 367-374.
17. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures, Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400303
18. Dzinkovvski, R. (2000). The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduction, Management Accounting. 78(2), 32-36.
19. Efe, M.N. (2015). Girişimsel Yönelim, Entelektüel Sermaye ve Örgütsel Öğrenme Yeteneklerinin Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri, (Beykent Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul), https://tezarsivi.com/girisimsel-yonelim-entelektuel-sermaye-ve-orgutsel-ogrenme-yeteneklerinin-firma-performansi-uzerine-etkileri ‘den erişildi.
20. Fettahlıoğlu, Ö.O., ve Afşar, A. (2015). Öğrenen Örgüt Boyutlarına Yönelik Algılamaların, Entelektüel Sermaye Algılaması Üzerindeki Yansımaları, International Journal of Social Science, 35(5), 287-300.
21. Fiske, D.W. (1982). Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and Research strategies, D. Brinberg ve L. Kidder (Eds.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Forms of validity in Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Fiş, A.M., ve Wasti, S.A. (2009). Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütlerin Girişimcilik Yönelimi İlişkisi, ODTÜ Geliştirme Dergisi, 35(Özel Sayı), 127-164.
23. Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., and Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation, Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159793
24. Hair J. F. J., Black C.W., Babin J.B., Anderson, E.R., and Tatham, L. R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall Inc.
25. Hughes, M., and Morgan, R. (2007). Exploitative learning and entrepreneurial orientation alignment in emerging young firms: Implications for market and response performance. British Journal of Management, 18(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00519.x
26. İpçioğlu, İ., ve Tunca, M.Z. (2002). Entelektüel Sermayenin Yönetilmesi, Ölçülmesi ve Firma Değerine Etkisi, Verimlilik Dergisi, 2(1), 175-198
27. Jöreskog, K.G., and Sörbom, D. (1984). Lisrel VI. Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares Methods, Mooresville, Indiana: Scientific Software.
28. Kang, S.C., Snell, S.A., and Swart, J. (2012). Options-based HRM, intellectual capital, and exploratory and exploitative learning in law firms' practice group. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21484
29. Khalili, H., Nejadhussein, S., and Fazel, A. (2013). The influence of entrepreneurial orientation on innovative performance: Study of a petrochemical company in Iran. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(3), 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKIC-09-2013-0017
30. Kıngır, S., ve Mesci, M. (2007). Öğrenen Organizasyonlar, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(19), 63-81.
31. Kitapçı. H., and Çelik, V. (2013). Ambidexterity and Firm Productivity Performance: The Mediating Effect of Organizational Learning Capacity, 9th International Strategic Management Conference, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99, 1105–1113.
32. Kocapınar, E.B. (2010). Entelektüel Sermayenin Girişimsel Oryantasyona Etkisi ve Firma Performansıyla İlişkisi, (Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Kocaeli), https://tezarsivi.com/entelektuel-sermayenin-girisimsel-oryantasyona-etkisi-ve-firma-performansi-ile-iliskisi ‘den erişildi.
33. Koç, H., ve Topaloğlu, M. (2010). Yönetim Bilimi, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 1. Baskı, Ankara.
34. Leana, C.R. and Van Buren, H.J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices, Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555. https://doi.org/10.2307/259141
35. Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W., and Tsai, M.T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.004
36. Lin, H,E., and McDonough, E.F.(2011). Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity, Ieee Transactions On Engineering Management, 58(3), 497-509 https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2010.2092781
37. Lubatkin, M.H., Şimşek, Z., Ling, Y., ve Viega, 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
38. Lumpkin, G.T., and Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258632
39. Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C., and Shneider, D.R. (2009). Understanding and Measuring Autonomy: an Entrepreneurial Orientation Perspective, Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00280.x
40. Marsick, V.J., and Watkins K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources Journal. 5(2), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422303005002002
41. Meydan, C.H., ve Şeşen, H.(2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
42. Mische, M.A. (2001). Strategic Renewal, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
43. Nazari, J., Herremans, I.M., Isaac, R.G., Manassian, A., and Kline, T.J.B.(2011). Organizational Culture, Climate and IC: An Interaction Analaysis, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2), 224-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111123403
44. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method (Resources for the Future. Washington, DC). Retrieved from https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/papers/UsingSurveysToValuePublicGoods.pdf
45. Mooi. E., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research: The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS Statistics. New York: Springer. Na, F., Ma, Q. H., Janine, B., and Patrick, F. (2016). Intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity in Chinese and Irish professional services firms. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(2), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2016-0021
46. Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
47. O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-088.pdf
48. Özkoç, Ö. (2018). Hastanelerde Marka Yönetimi Uygulamalarının Hastaların Marka Denkliği Algısı ve Hastane Tercihine Etkisi, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul), https://tezarsivi.com/hastanelerde-marka-yonetimi-uygulamalarinin-hastalarin-marka-denkligi-algisi-ve-hastane-tercihine-etkisi ‘den erişildi.
49. Özyılmaz, A., and Eser. S. (2013). Ortak Metod Varyansı Nedir? Nasıl Kontrol Edilebilir?, 21.Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi. 1. Basım. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 500-508.
50. Panagopoulos, G. (2016). Aspects of Organizational Ambidexterity. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 10(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.20460
51. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
52. Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., and Sturman, M.C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance, Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332834
53. Sayan, E. (2006). Otomotiv Sektöründe Öğrenen Örgütler, (Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kocaeli), https://www.ulusaltezmerkezi.net/otomotiv-sektorunde-ogrenen-organizasyonlar/ ‘den erişildi.
54. Senge, P.M. (2002). Beşinci Disiplin. [Fifth Discipline], (Ayşegül İldeniz, Ahmet Doğukan, Trans.), İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
55. Stam, W., and Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy Management Journal, 51, 97-111. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.30744031
56. Stevenson, H.H., and Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurial: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2486667
57. Stewart, T.A. (1997). Entelektüel sermaye: Kuruluşların yeni zenginliği. [Intellectual Capital: The new wealth of organization], (N. El Hüseyni, Trans.), İstanbul: Mess Yayınları.
58. Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities, The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159670
59. Şahin, F. (2012). Örgüt Kültürü ve Entelektüel Sermaye İlişkisi: Marmara Bölgesindeki Otel İşletmeleri Örneği, (Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bilecik), http://acikkaynak.bilecik.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11552/112 ‘den erişildi.
60. Şimşek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
61. Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., and Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods, Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 146-175. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
62. Tran, Q.H. (2013). Top Management Team Behavioral Integration, Organizational Ambidexterity, And Small Firms’ Performance: The Moderating Effect Of Entrepreneurial Orientation, (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3598513).
63. Turner, N., Swart, J., and Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. 15(3), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x
64. Tushman, M.L., and O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
65. Yu, R., Jiefang, H.E., and Liu, Z. (2014). The Co-evolution of Organizational Culture Transformation and Ambidextrous Capability: A Strategic Orientation Perspective, Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2(2), 102-105. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.2.2.102-105
66. Wang, C.L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00246.x
67. Wang, K.Y., Hermens, A., Huang, K.P., and Chelliah, J. (2015). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Learning On Smes’ Innovation, The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 7(4), 71-81. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c74/eeb59a4694e2fb67f3716203f31d4249d7ea.pdf
68. Wasko, M.M.. and Faraj, S.(2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice, Mis Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57, https://doi.org/10.2307/25148667