Population Ecology and Spin-offs

Abstract

The purpose of present study is to examine the spin-offs in the context of population ecology which is based on “selection” and “structural inertia”. It is investigated as to how population ecology can account for the spin-offs by resorting to factors other than founding and mortalities of organizations. According to population ecology, organizations with high levels of structural inertia are expected to get more stabilized and robust as they get older. It is observed, however, that there emerges some fluctuation between organization of high inertia and environmental dominance, which paves the way for spin-offs which is the pay-offs of high inertia, due to the loss of equilibrium. It is asserted in this study that organizations positively react to the pressure of selection by spinning off and thus naturally adapts to environment. There has always been an ongoing effort to strike a proper balance between the environment and the organization, while trying to maintain a convenient level of stress caused by the interaction between environmental dominance and structural inertia. It is suggested that organizations that are able to manage this effort successfully will not have to find a niche and resources within the limits of a niche width, will be able to attain a profusion of resources brought about by spin-offs in their habitats by further expanding these supposedly “limited” niches, not partitioning resources. It is concluded that the population ecology falls theoretically short of explaining organizational spin-offs, merges, re-unification with the spin-off organizations, death of some spin-off organizations, or their getting bigger than the parent organizations themselves.

Keywords

• Environmental Dominance, Structural Inertia, Equilibrium, Spin-offs

Örgütsel Çevrebilim ve Örgütsel Kopuşlar

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, örgütsel çevrebilim kuramı bağlamında örgütsel kopuşları incelemektir. Temel dayanakları çevresel ayıklama ve yapısal durağanlık olan “örgütsel çevrebilim” kuramının, örgütlerin var olmak ya da yok olmak seçenekleri dışında örgütlerde gerçekleşen “örgütsel kopuş”ları kuramsal olarak nasıl açıklayabileceği araştırılmıştır. Örgütsel Çevrebilim kuramına göre, yapısal durağanlığı yüksek olan örgütler büyüdükçe ve yaşları arttıkça daha düzenli ve güçlü olması gerekirken, yapısal durağanlığı yüksek olan örgütler ile çevrenin baskınlığı arasında bir dalgalanma oluşmakta, örgütün dengesi bozulmakta ve bu durum da yapısal durağanlığın bir bedeli olan örgütsel kopuşlara neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada böylece örgütlerin çevrenin ayıklama baskısına karşı örgütsel kopuşlar yoluyla olumlu bir tepki verdiği ve doğal uyumun sağlandığı ileri sürülmektedir. “Çevresel baskınlık – örgütsel durağanlık” arasındaki etkileşimin neden olduğu gerilimi en uygun düzeyde korumak için çevre ile örgüt arasında “dengeye ulaşma” çabası sürekli vardır. Bu çabayı yönetebilen örgütlerin, örgütsel kopuşlar yoluyla bir kesim genişliğinin var olan belirli sınırları içinde kendilerine yer ve kaynak bulmak zorunda kalmayacağı, aksine bu sınırları belirli olduğu iddia edilen kesimleri daha da genişleterek kendi yaşam alanlarında kaynak bölünmesine değil, kaynakların çoğaltılmasını da sağlayabileceği kanısına varılmıştır. Örgütsel çevrebilim kuramının bu bağlamda, örgütsel kopuşları, birleşmeleri, kopan örgütlerin geri alınmasını veya kopan örgütlerin bir kısmının ölmesini, bir kısmının ana örgütten daha da büyümesini kuramsal olarak açıklamakta yetersiz kaldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Çevresel Baskınlık, Yapısal Katılık, Denge, Örgütsel Kopuşlar

References

1. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science, 10/3, s.216-232.
2. Baum, J.A.C. ve Rowley, T.J. (2002). “Companion to Organizations: An introduction”. J.A. Baum, The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. s.133, Oxford: Blackwell. http://books.google.com.tr/books?id= DZMXhzuYxsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Baum,+Companion+to&hl=tr &sa=X&ei=WLHFT4P2FIr4sgaP0bWrAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=on epage&q=Baum%2C%20Companion%20to&f=false, Erişim Tarihi 30 Mayıs 2012.
3. Barnett, W.P. ve Carroll, G.R. (1995). Modeling Internal Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology, c. 21, s.217-236.
4. Block, Z. ve Macmillan, I., (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses Within the Firm. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. (Aktaran Chesbrough Henry, receive 20 August 2001, received in revised form 25 January 2002, accepted 18 February 2002, “The governance and perfomance of Xerox’ technology spin-off companies”, Research Policy, www.elsevier.com/locate/econbaseş s.404)
5. Buenstorf, G. ve Fornahl, D. (2009). B2C—bubble to cluster: the dot-com boom, spin-off entrepreneurship, and regional agglomeration. J Evol Econ, c.19, s.349–378.
6. Burgelman, R. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: insights from a process study. Manag. Sci, 29 (12), 1349-1364.(Aktaran Chesbrough Henry, receive 20 August 2001, received in revised form 25 January 2002, accepted 18 Februaary 2002, The governance and perfomance of Xerox’ technology spin-off companies, Research Policy, www.elsevier.com/locate/econbaseş s.404)
7. Carroll, G. (1988). Ecological Models of Organizations. Ballinger Publishing Company. Cambridge, Massachusetts, s.1-6.
8. Chesbrough, H., (2002a). Received 20 August 2001, received in revised form 25 January 2002, accepted 18 February 2002, The governance and perfomance of Xerox’ technology spin-off companies, Research Policy, 32 (2003) 403-421 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbaseş

9. Chesbrough, H., (2002b). Graceful Exits and Foregone Opportunities: Xerox’ Management of Its Technology Spin-off Companies. Business History Review, 76, no.4 (2002) (Aktaran Chesbrough H. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, s.5 ve s.198)
10. Chesbrough, H., (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
11. Chesbrough, H. ve Rosenbloom, R.S., (2002). The role of the business Model in capturing value innovation: evidence from Xerox corporation’s techonology spin-off companies. Ind. Corporate Change, in pres.
12. Cusatis, P.J., Miles, J.A. ve Woolridge, J.R. (1993). Restructuring Through Spinoffs. Journal of Financial Economics, c.33, s.293-311.
13. Dobrev, S. D., Kim, T.Y ve Carrol, G.R. (2003). Shifting Gears, Shifting Niches: Organizational Inertia and Change in the Evolution of the U.S. Automobile Industry, 1885-1981. Organization Science, c.14, No.3, s.264-282.
14. Garvin, A.D. (1983). Spin-offs and the new firm formation process. California Management Review, c.25, 3-20
15. Gavetti, G. ve Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), s. 113-137.
16. Gresov, C., Heather, A. H. ve Terence, A. O. (1993). Organizational Design, Inertia and The Dynamics of Competitive Response. Organization Science, C.4, s.181-208.
17. Hannan, M.T. ve Freeman J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Sociological Review, c.49, sayı 2, s.149-164
18. Hannan, M.T. ve Freeman J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, c.82, sayı 5, s.929-964.
19. Hannan, M.T. ve Freemann, J.H. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Helft, M. (2006). It pays to have pals in Silicon valley. New York Times, 17 Ekim. Johansson, M. (2007). Corporate Spin-offs and the Significance of Founders’ Informal Relations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, c. 19, No. 6, s.789–806
21. Jhonson, A. S. ve Klein, D.P. (1996). The Effects of Spinoffs on Corporate Investment and Performance. The Journal of Financial Research, c.19, No.2, s.293-307.
22. Kim, T-Y., Dobrev, S.D. ve Solari, L. (2003). The Two Sides of The Coin: Learning and Inertia Among Italian Automobile Producers, 1896-198. Industrial and Corporate Change, c.12, sayı 6, s.1279-1301.
23. Klepper, S. ve Sleeper, SD. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51:1291–1306
24. Lemos, J. (2009). In Defense Of Organizational Evolution. A reply to Reydon and Scholz. Philosophy of The Social Sciences, c.39, s. 463-474.
25. Leven, R. (1962). Theory of Fitness in a Heterogeneous Environment, I. The Fitness Set and Adaptive Function. The American Naturalist, c.96, no.891, (November-December), s.361-373
26. Liddle, David, quoted in Deborah Claymon, “David Liddle Forsakes Corporate Research for Independent Interval”, Red Herring, August 1998, (accessed 27 September 2002) (Akataran Chesbrough H. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, s.137)
27. Lucent Technologies. Results of Operations in 2001 Financial Review: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Conditions, (accessed 27 September 2002)(Aktaran Chesbrough H. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts, s.150)
28. March, J. G. (1981). “Footnotes on organizational change.” Administrative Science Quarterl, c.26, no.4, s.563-577
29. Markoff, J. (2008). Seattle taps its inner Silicon Valley. New York Times, 8 Şubat. Önder, Ç. ve Üsdiken, H. (2010). Örgüt Kuramları. (Der. Sargut, A. Selami ve Özen Şükrü), İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi. s.133-191
30. Özen, Ş. (2003). Örgütsel Çevrebilim, Toplumsal Yerleşiklik ve Ustalık Sektöründe Örgüt Doğumları. 11.Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi.
31. Parhankangas A. ve Arenius P. (2002). “From a corporate venture to an independent company: a base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms”, s.474-476, www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase adresinden alınmıştır.
32. Pascale. R. (2000). Surfing the Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature & the New Laws of Business. Texere, London, s.19
33. Péli, G. (2009). Fit By Founding, Fit By Adaptation: Reconciling Conflicting Organization Theories With Logical Formalization. Academy of Management Review, c.34, s.343-360.
34. Petersen, T. ve Kaput, K.W. (1991). Density Dependence in Organizational Mortality: Legitimacy or Unobserved Heterogenity?”. American Sociological Review, c.56, s.399-409.
35. Romanelli, E. ve Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test. The Academy of Management Journal, .37(5), s.1141-1166.
36. Salimath, S. M. ve Jones III, R. (2011). Population Ecology Theory: Implications For Sustainability. Management Decision, c. 49, no. 6, s. 874 – 910, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111143595, 25-04-2012 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
37. Scholz, M. ve Reydon,T.A.C. (2010). Organizational Ecology: No Darwinian Evolution After All. A Rejoinder to Lemos. Philosophy of The Social Sciences, c. 40, s.504-512 ( Orijinal olarak online 29 October 2009 basılmıştır, Online versiyonu bu adresten bulunabilir: http://pos.sagepub.com/content/40/3/504)
38. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Organization-Creating Organizations. Society, c.2, no.2, s.34-35
39. Stuart, T., ve Sorenson, O. (2003). The Geography of Opportunity: Spatial Heterogeneity in Founding Rates and The Performance of Biotechnology Firms. Research Policy, c.32, s.229-253
40. Welles, J. G. ve Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1964). Space Technology: Pay-off from Spin-off. Harward Business Review (July/August), s. 106-118(Aktaran Garvin A.D (1983). Spin-offs and the new firm formation process. California Management Review, c.25, 3-20)
41. Zucker, L.G. (1989). Combining Institutional Theory and Population Ecology: No Legitimacy, No History. American Sociological Review, c.8, s.157-190. http/www.xerox.com, resmi web sayfası, Erişim tarihi 08 Ocak 2012. http://www.answers.com/topic/hewlett-packard-company#cite_note-3, Erişim Tarihi 17 Ocak 2012; "HP Completes Acquisition of 3Com Corporation, Accelerates Converged Infrastructure Strategy". HewlettPackard.http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2010/100412x a.html. Retrieved July 7, 2011.
42. Türk Dil Kurumu. Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. http://www.tdk.gov.tr, 23 Ekim 2009.