ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES

Year 2017, , 875 - 878, 30.06.2017

Harun Yildiz , Gulbey Karatas

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the level of
organizational ambidexterity in terms of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
and to detect how many SMEs are involved in the ambidextrous group in Turkey. Data was collected with using
convenience sampling method from managers working in different sectors in
Turkey. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 21.0.  Findings revealed that
approximately 50% of SMEs (298 enterprises) are the high-level
ambidexterity.  Ambidexterity means to an
organization’s ability to pursue both exploitative and exploratory orientation.
Ambidextrous organizations can use exploitative and exploratory strategies
concurrently. Accordingly, in today's business world where change,
environmental uncertainty, and sustainable competitive advantage are important,
organizational ambidexterity provides organizations adaptability capabilities.
Also, this study provides theoretical and practical implications for further
research. 

Keywords

Organizational ambidexterity, exploitation, exploration, clustering analysis, SMEs

References

• Akdoğan, Ş., Akdoğan, A. ve Cingöz, A. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: An empirical examination of organizational factors as antecedents of organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 3(2): 17-27.
• Bayarçelik E. B., Özşahin, M. ve Yıldız, B. (2017). Strateji tipleri ile yenilik performansı ilişkisinde stratejik karar verme hızının şartlı değişken (moderator) etkisi. 16. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi, 4 Mayıs-6 Mart, İzmir.
• Benner, M. J. ve Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.
• Birkinshaw, J. ve Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287-298.
• Bodwell, W. ve Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2): 193-202.
• Chaharmahali, S. M. ve Siadat, A. S. (2010). Achieving organizational ambidexterity (Understanding and explaining ambidextrous organizations). Linköping University Department of Menegement and Engineering Strategic Management, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Sweden.
• Cingöz, A. ve Akdoğan, A. A. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık (organizational ambidexterity): Örgütsel ustalık düzeyini belirlemede araştırıcı ve yararlanıcı stratejilerin etkileşimsel rolü. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 59-67.
• Erşahan, B., Büyükbeşe, T., Bakan, İ. ve Sezer, B. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık. Bakan, İ. (Ed.). Çağdaş yönetim yaklaşımları (s. 613-627). İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
• Fındıklı, M. A. ve Pınar, İ. (2014). Örgüt kültürü algısı ve örgütsel çift yönlülük ilişkisi: örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımının aracılık etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1): 155-171.
• Floyd, S. W. ve Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 154-177.
• He, Z. L. ve Wong P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494.
• Hodgkinson, I. R., Ravishankar, M. N. ve Aitken-Fischer, M. (2014). A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. The Service Industries Journal, 34(15): 1234-1252.
• Kriz, A., Voola, R. ve Yüksel, U. (2014). The dynamic capability of ambidexterity in hypercompetition: qualitative insights. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(4): 287-299.
• Li, C. R., Lin, C. J. ve Chu, C. P. (2008). The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations. Management Decision, 46(7): 1002-1026.
• Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. ve 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.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
• Sarıaslan, H. 1995. Küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmelerin finansmanı için yeni model önerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 50(1): 313-321.
• Tan, M. ve Liu, Z. (2014). Paths to success: An ambidexterity perspective on how responsive and proactive market orientations affect SMEs’ business performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(5): 420-441.
• Top, Y., Adanur, H., Öz, M. ve Yaşar, M. (2014). Gümüşhane ili orman ürünleri sanayi işletmelerinin yapısal özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Forestry Faculty of Kastamonu University, 14(1): 24-36.