Örgüt Kültürü Algısı ve Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük İlişkisi: Örgütsel Düzeyde Bilgi Paylaşımının Aracılık Etkisi

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is a significant effect of the organisational culture percieved by supervisors to the organizational ambidexterity. The results of the studies realised on enterprises showed that cultural tightness and cultural looseness perception influence the organizational ambidexterity. However, a meaningful relationship between the perception of organisational culture (tightness/ looseness culture) with the information sharing on the organizational level could not be detected. Besides, it isn’t found that the information sharing on the organisational level has a significant effect of the organizational ambidexterity. Therefore, it isn’t found that the information sharing on the organizational level has a moderating effect on the relationship between the perception of organizational culture and the organisational ambidexterity.

Keywords

• Organizational culture, organizational ambidexterity, exploration, exploitation, the information sharing on the organizatioal level.

Örgüt Kültürü Algısı ve Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük İlişkisi: Örgütsel Düzeyde Bilgi Paylaşımının Aracılık Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, yöneticilerin kurumlarına dair algıladıkları örgüt kültürünün örgütsel çift yönlülük üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olup olmadığını belirlemektir. İşletmeler üzerinde yapılan araştırma sonuçları, sıkı ve gevşek kültür algısının örgütsel çift yönlülük üzerinde etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Örgüt kültürü (gevşek/ sıkı kültür) algısı ile örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımı arasında anlamlı bir ilişkinin varlığı tespit edilememiştir. Ayrıca, örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımının örgütsel çift yönlülük üzerinde anlamlı etkisi bulunamamıştır. Bu sebeple, örgüt kültürü algısı ve örgütsel çift yönlülük ilişkisinde örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımının aracılık etkisi bulunamamıştır.

Keywords

• Örgüt kültürü, örgütsel çift yönlülük, keşfedici stratejiler, yararlanıcı stratejiler, bilgi paylaşımı

References

1. ADLER, Paul, S., GOLDOFTAS, Barbara ve David I. LEVINE (1999), “Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model change overs in the Toyota production system”, Organization Science,10 (1), 43-68.
2. AGOGUÉ, Marine, YSTRÖM, Anna ve Pascal LE MASSON (2012), “Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management , 17(2).
3. ANDRIOPOULOS, Constantine ve Marianne W. LEWIS (2009), “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, 20, 696-717.
4. AKDOĞAN, Şükrü, AKDOĞAN, Asuman, A. ve Ayşe CİNGÖZ (2009), “Organizational Ambidexterity: An Empirical Examination Of Organizational Factors As Antecedents Of Organizational Ambidexterity”, Journal of Global Strategic Management, 06, 17-28.
5. BADEN-FULLER, Charles ve Henk W. VOLBERDA (1997), “Strategic Renewal, How Large Complex Organizaitons prepare for the Future”, International Studies of Mgt. & Org., 27(2), 95-120.
6. BARON, Reuben, M. ve David, A. KENNY (1986), “The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(6), 1173-1182.
7. BENNER, Mary J. ve Michael L. TUSHMAN (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy Of Management Review,28 (2) , 238-256.
8. CAO, Qing, Eric GEDAJLOVIC ve Hongping ZHANG (2009), “Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects”, Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.

9. COHEN, Wesley, M. ve Daniel, A. LEVINTHAL (1990), “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–153.
10. DAMANPOUR, Fariborz (1991), “Organizational innovation: A meta- analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.
11. DENISON, Daniel,R. (1990), Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Oxford, England, John Wiley & Sons, 1-267.
12. DUR, Serkan, YILDIZ, Sibel ve Nigar Çakar DEMİRCAN (2010), “Bilgi Yönetimi ve Örgütsel Etkinlik İLişkisi: Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgüt yapısının Temel Etkileri”, Ege Akademik Bakış, 10(1) , 71-93.
13. DURISIN, Boris ve Gergana TODOROVA (2012), “A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation” , Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 53–75.
14. GHOSHAL, Sumantra ve Christopher A. BARTLETT (1994), “Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality in management”, Strategic Management Journal, 15 (2), 91-112.
15. GIBSON, Cristina B. ve Julian BIRKINSHAW (2004), “The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of management Journal, 47 , 209-2
16. GUPTA, Anıl K., SMITH, Ken, G. ve Chiristina E. SHALLEY (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, 49(4) , 693-706.
17. GÜLEŞ, Hasan, K. ve Hasan BÜLBÜL (2004), “Toplam Kalite Yönetiminin İşletmelerde Yenilik Çalışmalarına Katkıları”, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 115–129.
18. HAMPDEN-TURNER, Charles (1990), Corporate Cultures:From Vicius Circles to Virtuous Circles, Butter & Tanner, London.
19. HE, Zi-Lin, Poh-Kam WONG (2004), “Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis”, Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
20. HOFSTEDE, Geert, H. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage Publications, London, 5.bs
21. HOTZ, Florian (2010), “Organizational Ambidexterity: A Multı-Level Perspective on Organizational Alignment”, Dissertation of The University of St. Gallen, Zurich, Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG)
22. IM, Ghiyoung (2006), “Exploratory and Exploitative Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Relationships”, Computer Information Systems Dissertation of The University Georgia State University, p:18-21.
23. IM, Ghiyoung ve Arun RAI (2008), “Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships”, Management Science, 54(7) , 1281-1296.
24. IRELAND, R, Duane ve Michael A HITT (1999) “Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership”, Academy of Management Executive, 13(1): 43-57.
25. IŞIKLI, Güzide, FEREC-ZADE, Ayna ve Hümeyra TAŞÇI, “Türk İşletmelerinde Örgüt Kültürü ve İnovatif Faaliyetler”, Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 722-737. Erişim Tarihi: 3/1272012. http://jhss-khazar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/TURK-ISLETMELERINDE-ORGUTKULTURU-VE-INOVATIF-FAALIYETLER.pdf
26. İLTER, H. Kemal (2007), “Bilgi Sistemleri Perspektifinden Kaynak Planlaması: Etkiler ve Değerler”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(11) , 1-20.
27. JUNG, Dongil Don, CHOW, Chee ve, Anne WU (2008), “Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation”, The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5):582-594.
28. LAVIE, Dovey ve Lori ROSENKOPF (2006), “Balancing Exploration And Exploitation In Alliance Formation”, Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797-818.
29. LEE, Siew Kim Jean ve Kelvin YU (2004), “Corporate culture and organizational performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychologu,19(4): 340-359.
30. LEVINTHAL, Daniel A. ve J.ames, G. MARCH (1993), “Myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal, 14 , 95-112.
31. LEWIS, Marianne, W. (2000), “Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide”, Academic Management Review, 25(4) , 760-776.
32. LIN, Hsing-Er ve Edward, F. McDONOUGH III (2011), “Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity”, Ieee Transactıons On Engıneerıng Management, 58 (3), 497-509.
33. McDONALD, Robert Edward (2002), “Knowledge Entrepreneurship: Linking Organizational Learning and Innovation”, Doctor of Philosophy at the Universtity of Connecticut., 6.
34. MARCH, James, G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, 2(1) , 71-87.
35. MISCHE, Michael A. (2001), Strategic Renewal, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
36. MORENO- LUZON, Maria, D. ve Jaume VALLS- PASOLA (2011), “Driving organizational ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda”, Management Decision, 49 (6) , 927-947.
37. O’REILLY, Charles, A. ve Michael, L. TUSHMAN (2007), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 28 , 185-20
38. ÖZKALP, Enver (2003), Örgütsel Davranış. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını no:1468, Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayını No: 782, 2. Baskı.
39. PETERS, Thomas J. ve Robert, H. WATERMAN (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America’s Best Run Companies, Harper & Row Inc., New York
40. PROBST, Gilbert ve Sebastian RAISCH (2005), “Organizational Crisis: The Logic of Failure”, Academy of Management Executive , 19(1), 90-105.
41. PURANAM, Phanish, SINGH, Harbir ve Maurizio ZOLLO (2006), “Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination- autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions”, Academy of Management Journal,49(2) , 263-280.
42. RAISCH, Sebastian ve Julian BIRKINSHAW (2008), “Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators”, Journal of Management, 34(3) , 375-400.
43. RAISCH, Sebastian, Julian BIRKINSHAW, Gilbert PROBST ve Michael L. TUSHMAN (2009), “Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance”, Organization Science, 20(4) , 685-695.
44. ROTHAERMEl, Frank, T. ve David, L. DEEDS (2004), “Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology”, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201-221.
45. SAINT-PAUL, Gilles; “Information sharing and cumulative innovation in business networks”, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4116, 2003, http://idei.fr/doc/by/saint_paul/information_sharing.pdf , erişim tarihi: 01/09/2012.
46. SCHEIN, Edgar H. (2009), The Corporate Culture, Survival Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. SPENCER, Jennifer, W. (2003), “Firms’ Knowledge-Sharing Strategies In The Global Innovation System: Empirical Evidence From The Flat Panel Display Industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 24 , 217-233.
48. ŞİMŞEK, Zeki (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding”, Journal of Management Studies, 46(4) , 597- 624.
49. TRIANDİS, Harry, C. (1989), “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts”, Psychological Review, 96(3) , 506-520.
50. TUSHMAN, Michael ve Charles O’REILLY (1996), “Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change”, California Management Review , 8-29.
51. VAROL, Muharrem (1989), “Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgüt İklimi”, Ankara Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi,XLIV: 1–2 , 195-222.
52. VOSS, Glenn B. ve Zannie Giraud VOSS (2012), “Strategic Ambidexterity in Small and MediumSized Enterprises: Implementing Exploration and Exploitation in Product and Market Domains”, Organization Science, Articles in Advance, 1–19 .
53. WANG, Catherine L. ve Pervaiz, K. AHMED (2004), “The Development And Validation Of The Organisational İnnovativeness Construct Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303-313.
54. WANG, Catherine, L. ve Mohammed RAFIQ (2009), “Organizational diversity and shared vision: Resolving the paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning”European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1): 86-101.
55. WANG, Catherine, L. ve Mohammed RAFIQ (2012), “Ambidextrous Organizational Culture,Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-tech Firms”, British Journal of Management, 1-16.
56. YU, Renzhi, Jiefang HE ve Zhiying LIU (2014), “The Co-evolution of Organizational Culture Transformation and Ambidextrous Capability: A Strategic Orientation Perspective”, Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2( 2), 102-105.