DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 184 - 196, 30.09.2022

Murat Ozpehlıvan

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630

Abstract

Purpose- The aim of this study is to examine the concept of organizational parochialism, which is one of the factors that determine the present
and future of organizations, and to apply validity and reliability tests by developing a scale that is thought to measure this concept.
Methodology- Our research was applied to 272 companies operating in the textile sector and the results were analysed in the SPSS.25 program.
As a result of detailed statistical analyses, the validity and reliability tests of the developed scale were completed and it was determined that the
scale statistically measures the concept of organizational parochialism.
Findings- According to the results of the research, it has been seen that the concept of organizational parochialism is divided into 5 different subdimensions with 25 items as namely business management, financial management, competitiveness, employment management and production
management.
Conclusion- In today's intensely competitive environment, businesses focus on the present and they may miss the possible risks of the future. In
addition to the possible risks, it is also possible for the organizations to make predictions about the future, to catch potential opportunities in a
timely manner and to benefit the organization from them. It is possible to say that businesses that cannot evaluate such risks and opportunities
are narrow-minded, especially in terms of management manner. In this study, a scale measuring the concept of organizational parochialism and
its sub-dimensions, which was determined that have not been researched before in social sciences as a result of the literature review, was
developed. In our research, it is possible to indicate that the concept has been confirmed by both the data obtained from the organizational
behaviour literature and the statistical data on its measurement.

Keywords

Organizational parochialism, narrow-mindedness, administrative shallowness, parochialism scale, projection determination

References

• Ascher, W. (2000). Applying classic organization theory to sustainable resource & environmental management. 5th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Law and Institutions Duke University, 1-7.
• Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. A holistic construct, administrative science quarterly, 27, 459-489.
• Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Bennett, J. F. (1962). Short-sighted approach to the payments deficit. Challenge, 10(10), 26-29. DOI: 10.1080/05775132.1962.11469459
• Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1982). the role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behaviour. Development of cognition, affect, and social relations. Psychology Press, 12(3),64-78.
• Campbell, J.M. & Campbell, R.A. (1992). Economic short-sightedness: one cause and cure. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington. D.C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/24651-MS
• Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
• Denis, J. D., (1994). Organizational form and the consequences of highly leveraged transactions: Kroger's recapitalization and Safeway's LBO. Journal of Financial Economics, 36(2), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(94)90024-8
• Friedman M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. in: Zimmerli W.C., Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Berlin. Heidelberg, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
• Garver, M. S. & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modelling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.
• Gilbert, A. & Churchill, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64- 73.
• Hauan A. & Johannessen JA. (1993). Organizational cybernetics. In: Stowell F.A., West D., Howell J.G. (eds) Systems Science, Springer. Boston. MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2862-3_31
• Ilari, A. (2013). Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 110- 114. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2013.736203
• Llusar, J. C. B. & Zornoza, C. C. (2002). Development and validation of a perceived business quality measurement instrument. The Global Voice of Quality, 4(4), 585-588.
• Mendell, J. S. (1977). Convincing management to think future. Planning Review Journal, 5(3), 30-32.
• Meyer, J. F. B. & Rice, E. G. (2009). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Mouton Publishers, Amsterdam, 155-192.
• Nonaka, I., Chia, R., Holt, R., Peltokorpi, V. (2014). Wisdom. Management and organization. Management Journal, 45(4), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614542901
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw Hill. New York.
• Peter, D. J. (2001). Resistance to change: A new view of an old problem. The Futurist, 35(3), 24-27.
• Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman, Marshfield. MA.
• Provost, L. & Leddick, S. (1993). How to take multiple measures to get a complete picture of organizational performance. National Productivity Review, 12(4), 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040120406
• Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality Management, 10(7), 1047-1075.
• Smith, T. S. (1994). Contemporary sociology. American Sociological Association, 23(1), 133–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2074935
• Steiner, L. (1998). Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810228577
• Tobias, L. L. (2004). The thriving person and the thriving organization parallels and linkages, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.3
• Wallnöfer, M. & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: a systematic review and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12030
• Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., Jorseskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33.