Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ÖRGÜTSEL USTALIĞIN GİRİŞİMCİLİK YÖNELİMİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: HİZMET VE ÜRETİM SEKTÖRÜ KARŞILAŞTIRMASI / The Effect Of Organizational Ambidexterity On Entrepreneurial Orientation: Comparison Of Service And Production Sector

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 421 - 440, 30.10.2020
https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.790146

Abstract

Bu çalışmada hizmet ve üretim sektörü için örgütsel ustalık alt boyutlarının, girişimcilik yönelimi alt boyutları üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Örnekleme yöntemi olarak kartopu örnekleme kullanılmış, veri toplama aracı olarak online anket formu oluşturulmuştur. Oluşturulan anket formu linki LinkedIn sosyal medya platformu üzerinden ulaşılabilen sektör yöneticilerine yönlendirilmiştir. Veri toplama süreci 5 Nisan-7 Haziran 2019 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Örneklemde 378 hizmet, 324 üretim sektörü yöneticisi yer almıştır. Veri analizinde SPSS 21 programı kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, her iki sektör için araştırmacı ve yararlanıcı ustalığın, risk alma ve özerklik üzerinde etkiye sahip olduğu, hizmet sektörü için yararlanıcı ustalığın, üretim sektörü için ise araştırmacı ustalığın, yenilikçilik, ileriye etkililik ve saldırgan rekabetçilik üzerinde en çok etkiye sahip örgütsel ustalık boyutu oldukları tespit edilmiştir.

References

  • Abernathy, W.J., ve Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3-22.
  • Ağca, V., ve Kurt, M. (2007). İç Girişimcilik ve Temel Belirleyicileri: Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 29,83–112.
  • Aldemir, B. (2011). Küçük ve Orta Boy İnşaat Firmalarının Girişimcilik Yönelimi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., ve Yıldırım, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. (7.Baskı). Adapazarı: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
  • Attar, M. (2014). Üst Düzey Yöneticilerin Liderlik Özelliklerinin Örgütsel Ustalık Düzeyine Etkisi: Türk Bankacılık Sektörü Üzerine Bir Araştırma, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Bai, J., ve Ren, J. (2016). Organizational Ambidexterity and Innovation Performance: The Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 10(4),664–693.
  • Bierly, P., Damanpour, F., ve Santoro, M. (2009). The Application of External Knowledge: Organizational Conditions For Exploration And Exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3),481–509.
  • Bierly, P., ve Daly, P. (2007). Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 31(4),493-516.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk. Ö., ve Köklü, N. (2013). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik. (3. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Cai, L., Zhu, X.M., ve Liu, Y. (2011). Study on the impact of EO on Resource Acquisition. Studies in Science of Science, 29(4),601–609.
  • Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R. And Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and Exploitation in The Development Of More Entrepreneurial Universities: A Twisting Learning Path Model Of Ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141,172–194.
  • Covin, J.G., ve Slevin. D.P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship As Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16,7-25.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Çömez, P. (2012). Örgütlerde Çift Yeteneklilik ve Örgütsel Yenilik İlişkisinde Liderlik Tiplerinin Rolü ve Firma Yenilik Performansına Etkileri, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.
  • Danneels, E. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23,1095-1121.
  • Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. ve Çinko, M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. 5. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Efe, M. N. (2015). Girişimsel Yönelim, Entelektüel Sermaye ve Örgütsel Öğrenme Yeteneklerinin Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Beykent Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Gibson, C. B., ve Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Ancedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal. 47(2),209–226.
  • Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change In The Presence Of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?. Organization Science, 17(1),150–167.
  • Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., ve Shalley, C.E. (2006), The Interplay Between Exploration And Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 4,693-706.
  • Gündüz, Y., ve Coşkun, Z.S. (2012). Öğrenci Algısına Göre Öğretmen Etik Değerler Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1),111-131.
  • He, Z.L. ve Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test Of The Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4),481-494.
  • Hosseini, M., Dadfar, H. ve Brege, S. (2012),Taxonomy of Entrepreneurial Firms: Entrepreneurial Orientation Versus Corporate Entrepreneurship. The Business ve Management Review, 3(1),240-251.
  • Hughes, M., ve Morgan, R. (2007). Exploitative Learning and Entrepreneurial Orientation Alignment in Emerging Young firms: Implications for Market and Response Performance. British Journal of Management, 18,359–375.
  • Jansen, J.J.P. (2005). Ambidextrous Organizations: A Multiple-level Study of Absorptive Capacity, Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation and Performance, (Doctoral Dissertation), Erasmus Üniversitesi Rotterdam.
  • Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. ve Volberda, H.W. (2005). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Environmental and Organizational Antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57,351-363.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W., ve Tsai, M.T. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation And firm Performance: The Role of Knowledge Creation Process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38,440–449.
  • Lubatkin, M.H., Şimşek, Z., Ling, Y., ve Viega, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance In Small- To Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role Of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32,646-672.
  • Lumpkin, G.T., ve Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1),135-172.
  • Luu, T.T. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Lyon, D.W., Lumpkin, G.T., ve Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing Entrepreneurial Orientation Research: Operationalizing and Measuring A Key Strategic Decision-Making Process. Journal of Management, 26,1055-1085.
  • Ma’atoofi, A.R. ve Tajeddini, K. (2010). The Effect of Entrepreneurship Orientation on Learning Orientation and Innovation: A Study of Small-Sized Business Firms in Iran. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 1(3),254-260.
  • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1),71-87.
  • McGrath, R.G. (2001), Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity, and Managerial Oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44,118-131.
  • Menguc, B., ve Auh, S. (2008), The Asymmetric Moderating Role of Market Orientation on The Ambidexterity–Firm Performance Relationship For Prospectors And Defenders. Industrial Marketing Management, 37,455-470.
  • Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management Science, 29,770-791.
  • O’Reilly, C., Tushman. M.L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4),74-81.
  • Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Tran, Q.H. (2015). Organizational Ambidexterity in Small Firms: The Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and Entrepreneurial Orientation. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 2(4),31-39.
  • Turner, N., Maylor, H., ve Swart, J. (2011), Ambidexterity-as-Practice: Understanding the Role of the Manager in IT-Services Projects. School of Management, 1-17.
  • Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2011). Corporate Proactiveness, Business Experience, Environmental Complexity and Firm Sustainability: Evidence from Information Technology Businesses in Thailand. Journal of International Business and Economics, 11,66-74.
  • Van, W.R., ve Mandla, A. (2012). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship. South African Journal of Business Management, 43(3),65-78.
  • Westerman, G., McFarlan, F.W., ve Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization Depn And Effectiveness Over the Innovation Life Cycle. Organization Science 12(2), 230-238.
  • Yazıcıoğlu, Y. ve Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Zampetakis, L.A. ve Vassilis, M. (2007). Fostering Corporate Entrepreneurship Through Internal Marketing: Implications for Change in the Public Sector. European Journal of Innovation, 10(4),413-433.

THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY ON ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION: COMPARISON OF SERVICE AND PRODUCTION SECTOR / Örgütsel Ustalığın Girişimcilik Yönelimi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Hizmet Ve Üretim Sektörü Karşılaştırması

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 421 - 440, 30.10.2020
https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.790146

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to investigate the effect of organizational ambidexterity subdimensions on entrepreneurial orientation subdimensions for the service and production sector. Snowball sampling was used as sampling method and online survey form was created as data collection tool. The questionnaire link was directed to the sector managers who can be reached via LinkedIn social media platform. The data collection process took place between April 5, 2019 and June 7, 2019. The sample included 378 service and 324 production sector managers. In data analysis SPSS 21 program was used. In the result of study, for both sectors, it has been concluded that exploration and exploitation ambidexterity are the organizational ambidexterity dimensions that have the greatest impact on risk taking and autonomy. Also, it has been determined that exploitation ambidexterity for the service sector and exploration ambidexterity for the production sector are the organizational ambidexterity dimensions that have the greatest impact on innovativeness, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness.

References

  • Abernathy, W.J., ve Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3-22.
  • Ağca, V., ve Kurt, M. (2007). İç Girişimcilik ve Temel Belirleyicileri: Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 29,83–112.
  • Aldemir, B. (2011). Küçük ve Orta Boy İnşaat Firmalarının Girişimcilik Yönelimi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., ve Yıldırım, E. (2012). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. (7.Baskı). Adapazarı: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
  • Attar, M. (2014). Üst Düzey Yöneticilerin Liderlik Özelliklerinin Örgütsel Ustalık Düzeyine Etkisi: Türk Bankacılık Sektörü Üzerine Bir Araştırma, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Bai, J., ve Ren, J. (2016). Organizational Ambidexterity and Innovation Performance: The Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 10(4),664–693.
  • Bierly, P., Damanpour, F., ve Santoro, M. (2009). The Application of External Knowledge: Organizational Conditions For Exploration And Exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3),481–509.
  • Bierly, P., ve Daly, P. (2007). Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 31(4),493-516.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk. Ö., ve Köklü, N. (2013). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik. (3. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Cai, L., Zhu, X.M., ve Liu, Y. (2011). Study on the impact of EO on Resource Acquisition. Studies in Science of Science, 29(4),601–609.
  • Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R. And Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and Exploitation in The Development Of More Entrepreneurial Universities: A Twisting Learning Path Model Of Ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141,172–194.
  • Covin, J.G., ve Slevin. D.P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship As Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16,7-25.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Çömez, P. (2012). Örgütlerde Çift Yeteneklilik ve Örgütsel Yenilik İlişkisinde Liderlik Tiplerinin Rolü ve Firma Yenilik Performansına Etkileri, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.
  • Danneels, E. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23,1095-1121.
  • Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. ve Çinko, M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. 5. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  • Efe, M. N. (2015). Girişimsel Yönelim, Entelektüel Sermaye ve Örgütsel Öğrenme Yeteneklerinin Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Beykent Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Gibson, C. B., ve Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Ancedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal. 47(2),209–226.
  • Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change In The Presence Of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?. Organization Science, 17(1),150–167.
  • Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., ve Shalley, C.E. (2006), The Interplay Between Exploration And Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 4,693-706.
  • Gündüz, Y., ve Coşkun, Z.S. (2012). Öğrenci Algısına Göre Öğretmen Etik Değerler Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1),111-131.
  • He, Z.L. ve Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test Of The Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4),481-494.
  • Hosseini, M., Dadfar, H. ve Brege, S. (2012),Taxonomy of Entrepreneurial Firms: Entrepreneurial Orientation Versus Corporate Entrepreneurship. The Business ve Management Review, 3(1),240-251.
  • Hughes, M., ve Morgan, R. (2007). Exploitative Learning and Entrepreneurial Orientation Alignment in Emerging Young firms: Implications for Market and Response Performance. British Journal of Management, 18,359–375.
  • Jansen, J.J.P. (2005). Ambidextrous Organizations: A Multiple-level Study of Absorptive Capacity, Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation and Performance, (Doctoral Dissertation), Erasmus Üniversitesi Rotterdam.
  • Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. ve Volberda, H.W. (2005). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Environmental and Organizational Antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57,351-363.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W., ve Tsai, M.T. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation And firm Performance: The Role of Knowledge Creation Process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38,440–449.
  • Lubatkin, M.H., Şimşek, Z., Ling, Y., ve Viega, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance In Small- To Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role Of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32,646-672.
  • Lumpkin, G.T., ve Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1),135-172.
  • Luu, T.T. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Lyon, D.W., Lumpkin, G.T., ve Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing Entrepreneurial Orientation Research: Operationalizing and Measuring A Key Strategic Decision-Making Process. Journal of Management, 26,1055-1085.
  • Ma’atoofi, A.R. ve Tajeddini, K. (2010). The Effect of Entrepreneurship Orientation on Learning Orientation and Innovation: A Study of Small-Sized Business Firms in Iran. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 1(3),254-260.
  • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1),71-87.
  • McGrath, R.G. (2001), Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity, and Managerial Oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44,118-131.
  • Menguc, B., ve Auh, S. (2008), The Asymmetric Moderating Role of Market Orientation on The Ambidexterity–Firm Performance Relationship For Prospectors And Defenders. Industrial Marketing Management, 37,455-470.
  • Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management Science, 29,770-791.
  • O’Reilly, C., Tushman. M.L. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4),74-81.
  • Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Tran, Q.H. (2015). Organizational Ambidexterity in Small Firms: The Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and Entrepreneurial Orientation. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 2(4),31-39.
  • Turner, N., Maylor, H., ve Swart, J. (2011), Ambidexterity-as-Practice: Understanding the Role of the Manager in IT-Services Projects. School of Management, 1-17.
  • Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2011). Corporate Proactiveness, Business Experience, Environmental Complexity and Firm Sustainability: Evidence from Information Technology Businesses in Thailand. Journal of International Business and Economics, 11,66-74.
  • Van, W.R., ve Mandla, A. (2012). Antecedents of corporate entrepreneurship. South African Journal of Business Management, 43(3),65-78.
  • Westerman, G., McFarlan, F.W., ve Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization Depn And Effectiveness Over the Innovation Life Cycle. Organization Science 12(2), 230-238.
  • Yazıcıoğlu, Y. ve Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • Zampetakis, L.A. ve Vassilis, M. (2007). Fostering Corporate Entrepreneurship Through Internal Marketing: Implications for Change in the Public Sector. European Journal of Innovation, 10(4),413-433.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLES
Authors

Mehmet Sağlam 0000-0002-1909-4284

Publication Date October 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 4 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Sağlam, M. (2020). ÖRGÜTSEL USTALIĞIN GİRİŞİMCİLİK YÖNELİMİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: HİZMET VE ÜRETİM SEKTÖRÜ KARŞILAŞTIRMASI / The Effect Of Organizational Ambidexterity On Entrepreneurial Orientation: Comparison Of Service And Production Sector. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme Ve Politika Dergisi, 4(2), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.790146

Recep Tayyip Erdogan University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Department of Economics
RIZE / TURKEY