KOŞUL BAĞIMLILIK KURAMI KAPSAMINDA ÖRGÜT BÜYÜKLÜĞÜ-ÖRGÜT YAPISI İLİŞKİSİNİN YAZINSAL AÇIDAN ELEŞTİREL BİR DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 135 - 165, 01.12.2014

Oya Aytemiz Seymen

https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.268173

Cited By: 3

Öz

Örgüt büyüklüğü ile örgüt yapısı ilişkisi, uzun süredir yönetim yazınının tartışma konusu olmayı sürdürmektedir. Öte yandan örgüt büyüklüğünün örgüt yapısı üzerinde bir şekilde etkili olduğu konusunda kayda değer bir akademik görüş birliği bulunmakla birlikte; yapılan yazınsal taramanın sonucunda, bu ilişkinin niteliği konusunda tam bir akademik uzlaşıya varıldığını ifade etmek güçtür. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yazar tarafından ulaşılabilen çalışmalar dikkate alınarak, yazında örgüt büyüklüğü-örgüt yapısı ilişkisi üzerinde halen önemli tartışma –uzlaşmazlık- noktalarının ve bundan kaynaklanan bir belirsizliğin olduğunun altını çizmek ve buradan yeni açılımlara işaret edebilmektir. Çalışmanın yazınsal anlamda özellikle öne çıkardığı ana konu başlıkları; örgüt büyüklüğü kavramının tanımında göreli bir belirsizliğin söz konusu olması, örgüt büyüklüğü-örgüt yapısı ilişkisinde ön plana çıkan “örgütsel farklılaşma” ve “örgütsel karmaşıklık” olgularının net bir biçimde ayrımlandırılamaması, örgüt büyüklüğü ile sözü edilen iki kavram arasında döngüsel bir ilişkinin varlığı üzerinde bir tartışmanın söz konusu olması ve örgüt büyüklüğü-bürokratikleşme arasında ilgi kuran çalışmaların sonuçlarının tam bir açıklıkla ortaya konulamaması şeklinde sıralanabilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı, Örgüt Büyüklüğü, Örgüt Yapısı, Örgütsel Farklılaşma, Örgütsel Karmaşıklık, Bürokratikleşme

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATION SIZE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTINGENCY THEORY

Öz

The relationship between the structure and size of an organization has been a topic of discussion for long in the management literature. Although there is a consensus among the academia about the existence of a correlation between the two, how they affect each other is still debated. The objective of this essay is, upon a review of the available literature, to underline the significant controversies and ambiguities about the relationship between the structure and size of an organization, and to open out new ways of thinking. Main topics that the essay will focus on are the vague definition of the organizational size; the confusion of “organizational differentiation” and “organizational complexity”, which are two important concepts explaining the relationship; the lack of consensus about the relationship between the size of an organization and these two important concepts; and inexplicit nature of the literature on the relationship between the size of an organization and the level of bureaucratization

Anahtar Kelimeler

: Contingency Theory, Organization Size, Organizational Structure, Organizational Differentiation, Organizational Complexity, Bureaucratization

Kaynakça

• Aktaş, M. ve Şener, İ. (2012). Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı. H. Cenk Sözen, H.Nejat Basım (Der.), Örgüt Kuramları (ss. 91-116). İstanbul: Beta BYD A.Ş.
• Al-Majali, F. (1996). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Impact of Organizational Size on Organizational Structure: A Meta-Analysis Study. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 12, 126- 151.
• Amis, J. ve Slack, T. (1996). The Size-Structure Relationship in Voluntary Sport Organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 76-86.
• Anderson, J.G. (1968). The Growth of Bureaucracy in the Schools. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Armandi, B.R. ve Mills, E.W. (1982). Organizational Size, Structure, and Efficiency: A Test of a Blau-Hage Model. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 41(1), 43-60.
• Astley, W.G. (1985). Organizational Size and Bureaucratic Structure. Organization Studies, 6(3), 201-228.
• Baker, D.D. ve Cullen, J.B. (1993). Administrative Reorganization and Configurational Context: The Contingent Effects of Age, Size, and Change in Size. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1251- 1277.
• Beard, D.W. (1978). The Effects of Organizational Size and Complexity on Managerial Role Structure: An Exploratory Analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, Meeting Abstract Supplement, 170-174.
• Barton, C.M. (2014). Complexity, Social Complexity, and Modeling. J. Archaeol Theory, 21, 306-324.
• Beyer, J.M. ve Trice, H.M. (1979). A Reexamination of the Relations between Size and Various Components of Organizational Complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 48-63.
• Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. ve Ridderstrale, J. (2002). Knowledge as a Contingency Variable: Do the Characteristics of Knowledge Predict Organization Structure? Organization Science, 13(3), 274-289.
• Blau, J.R. ve McKinley, W. (1979). Ideas, Complexity, and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 200-219.
• Blau, P.M. (1970). A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 201-218.
• Blau, P.M. (1973). The Organization of Academic Work. New York: Wiley.
• Blau, P.M. ve Schoenherr, R.A. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books.
• Bolat, T., Seymen, O.A., Bolat, O.İ. ve Erdem, B. (2014). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Güncellenmiş 4.Baskı. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Bruining, H., Verwaal, E., Lockett, A., Wright, M. ve Manigart, S. (2005). Firm Size Effects on Venture Capital Syndication: The Role of Resources and Transaction Costs. ERIM Report Series Research in Management. İndirilme Tarihi: 30.06.2014, www.erim.ur.nl
• Caluwe, C.D. ve Van Dooren, W. (2013). Do Organizations Matter? A Multilevel Analysis Explaining Perceptions of Organizational Performance. 11th Public Management Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 20-22, 2013 (ss. 1-22).
• Campbell, F.L. ve Akers, R.L. (1970). Organizational Size, Complexity, and the Administrative Component in Occupational Associations. The Sociological Quarterly, 11(4).
• Caves, R.E. (1980). Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and Structure. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XVIII, 64-92.
• Cetorelli, N. ve Goldberg, L.S. (2014). Measures of Complexity of Global Banks. Economic Policy Review, 20(2), 1-36.
• Child, J. (1972). Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 163-177.
• Child, J. (1973a). Predicting and Understanding Organization Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 168-185.
• Child, J. (1973b). Parkinson’s Progress: Accounting for the Number of Specialists in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 328-348.
• Cullen, J.B. ve Baker, D.D. (1984). Administration Size and Organization Size: An Examination of the Lag Structure. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 644-653.
• Cullen, J.B., Anderson, K. ve Baker, D.B. (1986). Blau’s Theory of Structural Differentiation Revisited: A Theory of Structural Change or Scale? Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 203-229.
• Daft, R.L. ve Bradshaw, P.J. (1979). Organization Size and Complexity: New Answers to an Old Question. ACAD MANAGE PROC, August 1, 190-194.
• Daft, R.L. ve Bradshaw, J.P. (1980). The Process of Horizontal Differentiation: Two Models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(3), 441-456.
• Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J, Fielding, G.J. ve Porter, L.W. (1980). Organization Structure and Performance: A Critical Review. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 49-64.
• Demir, H. ve Okan, T. (2009). Teknoloji, Örgüt Yapısı ve Performans Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(1), 57-72.
• Diez-Vial, I. (2009). Firm-Size Effects on Vertical Boundaries. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(2), 137-153.
• Donaldson, L., Qiu, J. ve Luo, B.N. (2013). For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 153-172.
• Egeberg, M. (2001). How Bureaucratic Structure Matters: An Organizational Perspective. B.G. Peters ve J. Pierre (eds.) Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage.
• Fligstein, N. (1985). The Spread of the Multidivisional Form among Large Firms, 1919-1979. American Sociological Review, 50(3), 377-391.
• Ford, M.W. (2009). Size, Structure and Change Implementation: An Empirical Comparison of Small and Large Organizations. Management Research News, 32(4), 303-320.
• Gillespie, D.F. ve Mileti, D.S. (1982). Differentiation in Organizations: A Comment on Miller and Conaty. Social Forces, 60(4), 1172-1175.
• Glisson, C.A ve Martin, P.Y. (1980). Productivity and Efficiency in Human Service Organizations as Related to Structure, Size and Age. Academy of Management of Journal, 23(1), 21-37.
• Greve, H.R. (2008). A Behavioral Theory of Firm Growth: Sequential Attention to Size and Performance Goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 476-494.
• Grinyer, P.H. ve Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1981). Strategy, Structure, Size and Bureaucracy. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 471-486.
• Gupta, N. (1980). Some Alternative Definitions of Size. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 759-766.
• Hall, R.H., Johnson, N.J. ve Haas, J.E. (1967). Organizational Size, Complexity, and Formalization. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 903-912.
• Hickson, D.J. (1998). For Positivist Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 950-953.
• Ho, Y.K., Trahpranata, M. ve Yap, C.M. (2006). Size, Leverage, Concentration, and R&D Investment in Generating Growth Opportunities. The Journal of Business, 79(2), 851-876.
• Hrebiniak, L.G. (1980). Size and Staff Personalization. Academy of Management Journal, 19(4), 662-669.
• Ifinedo, P. (2007). Interactions betwen Organizational Size, Culture, and Structure and Some It Factors in the Context of Erp Success Assessment: An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 28.
• Kalkan, A., Erdil, O. ve Çetinkaya, Ö. (2011). The Relationships between Firm Size, Prospector Strategy, Architecture of Information Technology and Firm Performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 854-869.
• Keçecioğlu, T. (2008). Örgüt Büyüklüğünün Örgüt Yapısına Olan Etkileri Üzerine Çok Boyutlu Yaklaşımlar. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 179-207.
• Klatzky, S.R. (1970). Relationship of Organizational Size to Complexity and Coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(4), 428- 438.
• Koçel, T. (2003). İşletme Yöneticiliği. 9. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım A.Ş.
• Koontz, H. (1980). The Management Theory Jungle Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 175-187.
• Kopp, D.G ve Litschert, R.J. (1980). A Buffering Response in Light of Variation in Core Techonology, Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, and Size. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 252-266.
• Lincoln, J.R. (1979). Organizational Differentation in Urban Communities: A Study in Organizational Ecology. Social Forces, 57(3), 915-930.
• Marsh, R.M. ve Mennari, H. (1981). Technology and Size as Determinants of the Organizational Structure of Japanese Factories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 33-57.
• Mas-Ruiz, F. ve Ruiz-Moreno, F. (2011). Rivalry within Strategic Groups and Consequences for Performance: The Firm-Size Effects. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1286-1308.
• Matias-Reche, F., Garcia-Morales, V.J. ve Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2008). Entrepreneurial Size, Complexity and Decentralization of Decision- Making in the Use of Temporary Help Workers in Spain. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 19(1), 169-187.
• Mayhew, B.H., Levinger, R.L., McPherson, J.M. ve James, T.F. (1972). Size and Structural Differentiation in Formal Organizations: A Baseline Generator for Two Major Theoratical Propositions. American Sociological Review, 37(5), 629-633.
• Miller, G.A. ve Conaty, J. (1980). Differentiation in Organizations: Replication and Cumulation. Social Forces, 59(1), 265-274.
• Mintzberg, H. (2014). Örgütler ve Yapıları (Çeviri Editörü: Ahmet Aypay). Ankara: Nobel.
• Moch, M.K. ve Morse, E.V. (1977). Size, Centralization and Organizational Adoption of Innovations. American Sociological Review, 42(5),
• Modarres, M. (2010). Reorganization: Contingent Effects of Changes in the Ceo and Structural Complexity. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 95-109.
• Moon-Gi, S. (2007). The Relationship between Size and Administrative Ratio in Organizations: Theoretical Reflections on the Baseline Model. Development and Society, 36(2), 249-264.
• Morton, N.A. ve Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the Fit between Organizational Structure and ERP: A Structural Contingency Theory Perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 391-402.
• Oldham, G.R. ve Hackman, J.R. (1981). Relationships between Organizational Structure and Employee Reactions: Comparing Alternative Frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 66-83.
• O’Regan, N. ve Ghobadian, A. (2004). Testing the Homogenity of SMEs: The Impact of Size on Managerial and Organisational Processes. European Business Review, 16(1), 64-79.
• Özdemir, S., Ersöz, H.Y. ve Sarıoğlu, İ. (2006). İşsizlik Sorununun Çözümünde KOBİ’lerin Desteklenmesi. İstanbul: VİMEK.
• Paulson, S.K. (1980). Organizational Size, Techonogy, and Structure: Replication of a Study of Social Service Agencies among Small Retail Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 341-347.
• Pennings, J. (1973). Measures of Organizational Structure: A Methodological Note. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 686-704.
• Perrucci, R. ve Mannweiler, R.A. (1968). Organization Size, Complexity, and Administrative Succession in Higher Education. The Sociological Quarterly, 9(3), 343-355.
• Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Molina-Azorin, J.F. ve Claver-Cortes, E. (2008). A Comparative Analysis of the Influence that Different Fit Perspectives Have on Firm Performance. Management Research, 6(2), 139-150.
• Pfeffer, J. ve Leblebici, H. (1973). The Effect of Competition on Some Dimensions of Organizational Structure. Social Forces, 52(2), 268- 279.
• Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. ve Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of Organization Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1),
• Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. ve Turner, C. (1969). The Context of Organization Structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91-114.
• Rashing, W.A. (1976). Profit and Nonprofit Orientations and the Differentiations-Coordination Hypothesis for Organizations: A Study of Small General Hospitals. American Sociological Review, 41, 676- 691.
• Rayburn, J.M. ve Rayburn, L.G. (1991). Contingency Theory and the Impact of New Accounting Technology in Uncertain Hospital Environments. Accounting, Auditing&Accountabiliy Journal, 4(2), 55-75.
• Reino, A. ve Vadi, M. (2012). Industry, Organizational Age, Size as Predictors of Organizational Values in the Context of a Transition Society: The Case of Estonian Organizations. Journal of East-West Business, 18(1), 28-53.
• Reiss, W. (1970). Organizational Complexity: The Relationship between the Size of the Administrative Component and School System Size. Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, Technical Report No.10.
• Robey, D., Bakr, M. ve Miller, T.S. (1977). Organizational Size and Management Autonomy: Some Structural Discontinuities. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 378-397.
• Santoro, M.D. ve Chakrabati, A.K. (2002). Firm Size and Technology Centrality in Industry-University Interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180.
• Sargut, A.S. (2007). Yapısal Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramının Örgütsel Çevre Kuramları Bağlamındaki Yeri. A.Selami Sargut, Şükrü Özen (Der.), Örgüt Kuramları (ss. 35-75). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Schminke, M., Cropanzone, R. ve Rupp, D.E. (2002). Organization Structure and Fairness Perceptions: The Moderating Effects of Organizational Level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 881-905.
• Scott, R.W. (1975). Organizational Structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 1-20.
• Singh, A. ve Whittington, G. (1975). The Size and Growth of Firms. İndirilme Tarihi: 25.11.2013, http://restud.oxfordjournals.org
• Specht, D.A. (1973). System Size and Structural Differentiation in Formal Organizations: An Alternative Baseline Generator. American Sociological Review, 38(4), 479-480.
• Stolzenberg, R.M. (1978). Bringing the Boss Back in: Employer Size, Employee Schooling, and Socioeconomic Achievement. American Sociological Review, 43, 813-828.
• Storey, D.J., Saridakis, G., Sen-Gupta, S., Edwards, P.K. ve Blackburn, R.A. (2008). Management Formality, Size of Firm and Employee Evaluations of Work. Working Paper No. 99. The Publications Secretary CSME University of Warwick, Coventry.
• Sucu, Y. (2010). Geçmişten Günümüze Yönetim Düşüncesindeki Gelişmeler: http://www.yasarsucu.net/pdf Bir Durumsallık Modeli.
• Van de Ven, A. ve Leung, R. (2009). Changing Organisational Designs and Performance Frontiers. İndirilme Tarihi: 30.06.2014, https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu
• Verwaal, E. ve Donkers, B. (2002). Firm Size and Export Intensity: Solving an Empirical Puzzle. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 603-613.
• Wallace, J.E. ve Kay, F.M. (2009). Are Small Firms More Beautiful or Is Big Better? A Study of Compensating Differentials and Low Firm Internal Labor Markets. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 474-496.
• Wally, S.J. ve Baum, R. (1994). Personal and Structural Determinants of the Pace of Strategic Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 932-956.
• Wang, L. (2009). Ownership, Size, and the Formal Structure of Organizations: Evidence from US Public and Private Firms, 1992- 2002. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 595-636.
• Wood, J.A. (2005). Organizational Configurations an Antecedent to Buying Centers Size and Structure. The Journal of Business&Industrial Marketing, 20(6), 263-275.