Aile İşletmelerinin Kurumsallaşma Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik KarşılaştırmalıBir Araştırma

Year 2009, Issue: 21, 497 - 507, 01.02.2009

İrfan Yazıcıoğlu Hakan Koç

Abstract

İşletmelerin rekabetin çok şiddetli olduğu pazarlarda varlıklarınısürdürebilmeleri, pazarın isteklerini ve beklentilerini karşılayabilme yetenekleri ile yakından ilgilidir. Artık işletmeler aktif bir organizasyon oluşturarak örgütsel değişimi ve gelişimi hızla gerçekleştirir hale gelmek zorundadırlar. Ülkemizdeki işletmelerin %95 gibi büyük bir çoğunluğu aile şirketlerinden oluşmaktadır. Aile işletmelerinin bu değişim ve gelişime dâhil olabilmeleri hem yerel hem de küresel pazarlarda varlıklarınıdiğer kuşaklara devredebilmeleri için kurumsallaşma bir çıkışyolu olarak görülmektedir. Bu araştırmada aile işletmelerinin kurumsallaşma düzeyinin belirlenmesi, aile işletmelerinin kurumsallaşma düzeyinin aile işletmesi olmayanlara göre ve işletmelerin faaliyet sürelerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca kurumsallaşma göstergeleri açısından aile işletmeleri ile aile işletmesi olmayan işletmelerin farklılaşmasının belirlenmesi çalışmanın ikinci amacınıoluşturmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Ankara’da 78 işletmeye anket uygulamasıyapılmıştır. Bağımsız örneklem t testi kullanılarak oluşturulan hipotezler test edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak aile işletmelerinin kurumsallaşma düzeyleri ile aile işletmesi olmayanlar arasında farklılıkların bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Aile işletmeleri, Kurumsallaşma. Kurumsallaşma düzeyi

A Comparative Study Into The Level Of Institutionalisation Of Family-Run Enterprises

Abstract

Globalization made it imperative for the enterprises to adapt themselves to the market and to develop themselves in line with the conditions. In present day markets where the competition is fierce, the ability of the enterprises to survive in the present-day market has got a lot to do with the ability to meet the demands and the expectations of the markets. Hence, the enterprises have to undergo an organizational change and development through the composition of actively-engaged organizations. A wide majority of the enterprises in our country comprise family enterprises. In order for family enterprises to incorporate themselves into this change an development and to transfer their operation in the globalizing markets to the future generations, institutionalisation could be regarded as a way to overcome this process of change. However, since institutionalisation is a long and hard process to accomplish, not every family enterprise can achieve this managerial transformation. Therefore the 70% percent of family- enterprises are not assigned to the second generation and the 90% of the second generation family enterprises are not assigned to the third generation. Institutionalisation means that repeated actions and habits become standardized in societies or gain institution-like characteristics in time and that the processes considered smoothly follow their path within a systematic and set of rules already determined. A set system and rules in which the activities of an enterprise are conducted help to form the corporation culture, in other words corporation identity. The most fundamental philosophy of institutionalisation is that tasks and processes are based on a model, not individuals. Since the tasks and processes are based on a model, the owners of the enterprises do not matter for the continuity of the enterprise. As institutionalisation brings forth competitiveness and conflict within itself, there is always progress for the better. Institutionalisation is the administration of the enterprise within a set objectives and targets as well as principles and values. These objectives and targets are so strong and attractive, the principles are so sound and binding that the mangers of the companies feel themselves obliged to comply with them. In other words, these are the concepts which are free from the decisions and personalities of the managers. These concepts are comprised of vision, mission, principles and values. The set objectives, principles and values are binding for every employee including the managers within a corporation Kahveci, 2007: 43 . Institutionalisation, which emphasises that there should be a model-based system rather than individual-based, has its own markers in terms of its composition. These markers can be summarize as corporation constitution, professionalism, an efficient organizational structure, delegation, managerial concept, decision-making style and an efficient communication systems. To develop institutionalization models for family enterprises, which play an important role to generate revenue and employing for countries’ economy, by determining their institutionalization level is vital. Because the most of the family enterprises are not to be found in market, before assigned to the second and third generations since they could not accomplish the principles of institutionalization. This study sets outs to find out the level of institutionalisation at family-run corporations and whether there is differentiation in terms of some variables at the level of institutionalisation. To serve these purposes, the followings are the hypotheses of this study; H1: The levels of institutionalisation of the Family-run corporations and non-family-run corporations are different. H2: The levels of institutionalisation of enterprises differ in term of duration of their operation. Within the scope of the study, while the primary aim was to find out the level of the institutionalisation, the secondary aim was to analyze whether there is differentiation in terms of the level of the institutionalisation between the family-run and nonfamily-run corporations as well as the difference in terms of the duration of operation of the enterprises concerned. To serve these purposes, data were collected through questionnaires from randomly-selected 78 enterprises operating in Ankara. In the first part of the questionnaire, there were descriptive questions duration of operation, field of operation, the type of the enterprise: family-run or no-family-run , as for the second part, there were statements to find out the level of institutionalisation. The enterprises included in the study were as the following according to the type of operation; 11 involved in Food and Machinery, 10 Automotive and by-product, 9 energy, 7 construction, 6 textile, 5 informatics and chemistry, 4 leather, 2 durables, 2 furniture and tourism, and 1 packaging field. In other words, enterprises from 14 different fields were included in the study. It has been found out that there is a statistically significant differentiation at 5% level p

Keywords

Family-Run Enterprises, Institutionalisation, Level of institutionalisation The type of research: Case Analysis

References

• Akat, İ., Atılgan. T., (1992). Sanayi İşletmelerinde Kurumlaşma ve Şirket Kültürü, TOBB Yayın No: 226, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Sorunlar-Çözüm Önerileri Dizisi: 4. Ankara.
• Alayoğlu N., (2003). Aile Şirketlerinde Yönetim ve Kurumsallaşma, MÜSİAD Yayınları: 42, Yönetim Kitapları: 2, İstanbul.
• Barnes, L.B., Hershon, S.A., (1976). “Transferring Power in the Family Business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.54, No.4, s.105-114.
• Barnes, L.B., Hershon, S.A.., (1994). “Transferring Power in the Family Business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, s. 377-392
• Bilgin, N., (2007). “Aile Şirketleri Kurumsallaşma Eğilimleri: Ankara Kobi Örneği”, Atılım Üniversitesi, Yayınlanmamış Master Tezi. Ankara.
• Carney, M.,Gedajlovic E., (2002). “The Co-evolution of Institutional Environments and Organizational Strategies: The Rise of Family Business Groups in the ASEAN Region”, Organization Studies Vol. 23, No.1, s.1-29
• Davis, P.S., Harveston, P.D., (1998). “The influence of family on the family business succession process: a multigenerational perspective”, Entrep. Theory Pract. Vol.22, No.3, s.31–49.
• Handler, W., (1989). “Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses”, Family Business Review, Vol.2, No.3, s.257-276.
• Handler, W., (1992). “Succession Experience of the Next Generation”, Family Business Review, Vol.5, No.3, s.283 – 307
• Harris, D., Martinez, J.L., & Ward, J.L. (1994). “Is Strategy Different for the Family Owned Businesses?” Family Business Review, Vol.7, No.2, s.159 - 176.
• Kahveci, T.C., (2007). “İmalat İşletmelerinde Kurumsallaşma ve Kurumsal Modelleme”, Sakarya Üniversitesi Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Sakarya.
• Karpuzoğlu, E., (2004). “Aile Şirketlerinin Sürekliliğinde Kurumsallaşma”, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi, 1. Aile İşletmeleri Kongresi, İstanbul, Kongre Kitabı, s.42 - 53.
• Kırım Arman, (2001). Aile Şirketlerinin Yönetimi, Sistem Yayımcılık, İstanbul.
• Leenders, M., Waarts, E., (2003). “Competitiveness and Evolution of Family Businesses: The Role of Family and Business Orientation”, European Management Journal, Vol. 21, No.6, s.686 - 697.
• Levinthal, D., Jennifer, M., (1994). “Co-evolution of Capabilities and Industry: the Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15, s.45 - 62.
• Litz, R. A., (1995). “The Family Business: Toward Definitional Clarity” Family Business Review, Vol. 8, No: 2, s. 71 - 81
• Morris, M., Williams, R., Allen, J., Avila, R., (1997). “Correlates of Success in Family Business Transitions”. Journal of Business Venturing Vol.12, No.5, s.385 – 401.
• Melin, L., Nordqvist, M., (2007). The Reflexive Dynamics Of Institutionalization: The Case of The Family Business .strategıc Organızatıon Vol.5, No.3, s. 321 – 333.
• Miller, D., Steier, L., and Miller, I.L.B. (2003). “Lost in Time: Intergenerational Succession, Change, and Failure in Family Business”, Journal of Business Venturing No.18, s.513 – 531
• Neuberg, F., Lank, A.G., (1998). The Family Business: Its Governance for Sustainability. Macmillan, London.
• Özkaya M.O., Şengül, C.M., (2006). “Aile Şirketlerinde Kurumsallaşma ve İkinci Kuşağın “Kurumsallaşma” Konusuna Bakış Açısı”, D.E.Ü İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt.21, Sayı:1, s.109 - 126.
• Özler, H., Özler, D.E., Gümüştekin, G.E., (2007). “Aile İşletmelerinde Nepotizmin Gelişim Evreleri ve Kurumsallaşma” Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Cilt. 1, Sayı:17, s. 437 - 450
• Shanker. M.C., Astrachan. J.H. (1996). “Myths and Realities: Family Businesses’ Contribution to the US Economy - A Framework for Assessing Family Business Statistics”. Famıly Busıness Revıew, vol. 9, No: 2, 107 - 123
• Shepherd, D.A., (2009). “Grief Recovery From the Loss of a Family Business: A Multi-and meso-Level Theory”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24, s.81 - 97.
• Shepherd, D.A., Zacharakis, A., (2000). “Structuring Family Business Succession: an Analysis of the Future Leader’s Decision Making”. Entrep. Theory Pract. Vol. 24, No.4, s.25 – 39.
• Taş, Y., Akdemir, A., (2005). “Hastane Organizasyonlarında Kurumsallaşma ve Bunu Etkileyen Faktörler”, http://www.sabem.saglik.gov.tr/ AkademikMetinler/linkdetail.aspx?id=3052 (Erişim tarihi: 11 Şubat 2008.)
• Topaloğlu, M., Koç, H., (2007). Büro Yönetimi Kavramlar ve İlkeler, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Ulukan, C., (2005). “Girişimcilerin ve Profesyonel Yöneticilerin Kurumsallaşma Perspektifi”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:2, s.29 - 42.
• Wortman, M. S., (2005). Theoretical Foundations For Family-Owned Business: A Conceptual And Research-Based Paradigm. Famıly Business Review, Vol.7, No: 1, s.3 - 27
• Yasa, E., (2006). Aile Şirketlerinde Kurumsallaşma: Mersin İli Aile Şirketlerinin Kurumsallaşma Konusundaki Tutumlarını ve Düşüncelerini Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Çağ Üniversitesi Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mersin.
• Yazıcıoğlu, İ., (2008). “Aile İşletmelerinde Kurumsallaşma”, Pusula Dergisi, Sayı:2, s.42 - 43.