Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma

Metin Reyhanoğlu; Özden Akın

doi:10.18037/ausbd.552419

Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma

Öz

Örgütler, rekabetin yoğun olduğu ve sürekli değişen ortamda performanslarını arttırmak için mevcudu geliştirme ve keşfetme stratejilerini uygulamak zorunda kalmaktadırlar. Ancak her iki yeteneği aynı anda kullanma anlamına gelen eşit iki yönlülüğü başarmak o kadar kolay değildir. Bunun için örgütün girişimci yeteneğinin de olması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, girişimci yönlülüğün örgüt performansına olan etkisinde keşfetme ve mevcudu geliştirme inovasyon stratejilerinin aracı etkisinin tespit edilmesidir. Hatay’da 10-750 çalışana sahip imalat sektöründeki üst düzey yöneticilere uygulanmış anketlerden elde edilen verilerle, aracı değişkenin belirlenmesine yönelik hiyerarşik regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Literatürden farklı olarak eşit iki yönlülüğün boyutları; ‘ürün/teknoloji keşfetme’, ‘pazarı keşfetme’, ‘mevcut ürün/teknoloji geliştirme’ ve ‘mevcut pazarı geliştirme’ olarak belirlenmiş olup her biri için ayrı analiz yapılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda ürün/ teknoloji keşfetme, pazarı keşfetme, mevcut ürün/teknoloji geliştirme boyutları, girişimci yönlülük ve performans arasındaki ilişkide aracı değişkenler olarak bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Girişimci Yönlülük,Eşit İki Yönlülük,Keşfetme,Mevcudu Geliştirme

Kaynakça

Abebe, M.A., Angriawan, A. (2014). Organizational and Competitive Influences of Exploration and Exploitation Activities in Small Firms. Journal of Business Research, 67 (3), 339-345. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.01.015
Akdoğan, S., Akdoğan, A.A., 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. http://isma.info/uploads/files/017-organizational-ambidexterity-an-empirical-examination-of-organizational-factors-as-antecedents-of-organizational-ambidexterity.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20 (4), 696-717. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402. doi: 10.2307/3150783
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the Capability–Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 61–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640396 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A. (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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploration, Exploitation, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2), 238-256. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096
Bierly, P. E., Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practitioners, 31 (4), 493–516. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x

Bot, S.D., (2012), Process Ambidexterity for Entrepreneurial Firms, Technology Innovation Management Review, April, http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Bot_TIMReview_April2012.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentless Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 1–34. doi: 10.2307/2393807
Bryant, P. (2009), The Role of Ethics in Developing Entrepreneurial Ambidexterity. Proceedings of Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2009: 6th International
Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship (AGSE) (03-06 February 2009), South Australia, Australia: Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Adelaide, http://researchbank. swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:34336/SOURCE1 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Bryman, A.ve Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 14, 15,& 16 Guide for Social Scientists, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Burgers, H. Jansen, J.P. (2008). Organızational Ambidexterity and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Differential Effects on Venturing, Innovation and Renewal Processes. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 28 (19), http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol28/iss19/2 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Burns, P. (2001). Entreprenurship and Small Business, Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave MacMillan.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı (10. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Chandler, G.N. Hanks, S.H. (1993). Measuring the Performance of Emerging Businesses: A Validation Study. Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (5), 391–408. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(93)90021-V
Chang, Y.C., Chen, M.H., Chi, H.R., Lee, H. (2014). Ambidextrous Innovation Capabilities, Antecedents and Performance. 2014 Proceedings of PICMET’14: Infrastructure and Service Integration. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6921281 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Chen, M.H., Chang, Y.Y., Chang, Y.C. (2015). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Social Networks, and Creative Performance: Middle Managers as Corporate Entrepreneurs. Creative and Innovation Performance, 24 (3), 493-507. doi: 10.1111/caim.12108
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P. (1988). The Influence of Organization Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style. Journal of Management Studies, 25 (3), 217–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00033.x
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (1), 7–26.
Covin, J.,G., Wales, W.J. (2011), The Measurement of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (4), 677-702, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00432.x
Covin, J.G., Miller, D. (2014). International Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Issues, and Future Research Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (1), 11–44. doi: 10.1111/etap.12027
Douglas, E., Shepherd, D. (2002). Self-employment as a Career Choice: Attitudes, Entrepreneurial Intentions, and Utility Maximization. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 81-90. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5527/1/5527_1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016)
Duncan, R. (1976). The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation. Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R., Sleven, D. (eds.), The management of organization içinde, pp. 167-188, New York: North Holland.
Efrat, K. (2014). The Direct and Indirect Impact of Culture on Innovation. Technovation, 34 (1), 12-20. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.08.003
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Firm Performance, and the Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership Behaviors. Journal of Management, 41 (4), 1069-1097. doi: 10.1177/0149206312455244
Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 209–226. doi: 10.2307/20159573
Hambrick, D.C., Geletkanycz, M.A., Fredrickson, J.W. (1993). Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo: Some Tests of its Determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (6), 401–418. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140602
He, Z.L., Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15 (4), 481-494. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Hornsby, J., Bloodgood, J., Turnley, W.H. (2011). The Effect of Strategic Planning Flexibility, Absorbtive Capacity, Ambidexterity, and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) on Organizational Outcomes: An Empirical Analysis (Summary). Frontiers of Entrepereneurship Research, Proceedıngs of the Thırty-Fırst Annual Entrepreneurshıp Research Conference, 31 (12), 424 article 11. http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol31/iss12/11 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Huang, S., Ding, D., Chen, Z. (2014). Entrepreneurial Leadership and Performance in Chinese New Ventures: A Moderated Mediation Model of Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Environmental Dynamism, Creativity and Innovation Management, 23 (4), 453-471. doi: 10.1111/caim.12085.
Kollmann, T, Stöckmann, C. (2012). Filling Entrepreneurial Orientation-Performance, Gap: The Mediating Effects of Exploratory and Exploitative. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (5), 1001-1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00530.x
Kortmann, S. (2014). The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on The Relationship Between Ambidexterity-Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity. Journal of Innovation Management, 32 (5), 666-684. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12151
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4), 822–846. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670902
Lin, H.E. McDonough, E.F.III, Lin, S.J., Lin, C.Y.Y. (2013). Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 30 (2), 262–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., 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. doi: 10.1177/0149206306290712
Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135–173. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258632 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71−87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T., Özsomer, A. (2002). The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Market Orientation on Business Performance. Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 18–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203452 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016).
Meeks, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial Ambidexterity (Interactive Paper). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Proceedıngs of the Thırty-Second Annual Entrepreneurshıp Research Conference, 32 (12), article 21. http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol32/iss12/21 (Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2016).
Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–91. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) Revisited: A Reflection on EO Research and Some Suggestions fort he Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (5), 873-894. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00457.x
Onyemah, V., Pesquera, M.R. (2015). Cognitive Ambidexterity in Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Four Country Exploratory Study of Women Entrepreneurs’ Early Customer Acquisition Strategies. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 6 (1), 10-28. http://www.om.ef.vu.lt/cms/cache/RePEc_files/article_65.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2016).
O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, And Future, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27 (4), 324–338. doi: 10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531–544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Bias in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of The Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K.J., Leonardelli, G.J. (2001). An Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests. http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 12.04.2016).
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance, Organization Science, 20 (4), 685–695. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T., Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for The Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (3), 761–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
Reyhanoğlu, M., Sırkıntıoğlu Yıldırım, Ş. (2016). Aile İşletmelerinde Aile Değerlerinin Örgüt Kültürüne Etkisi, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5 (3 Ekonomi & İşletme Özel Sayı), 574-596.
Reyhanoğlu, M., Akın, Ö. (2015). Örgüt Kültürü Tipleri İnovasyonda Eşit İki Yönlülüğü (Ambidexterity) Belirler mi?. Ege Innovation Network “İnovasyon Ekosistemleri Aracılığı ile Değer Yaratmak: Disiplinler Arası Yaklaşımlar Kongresi (26-27 Kasım), Bildiri CD içinde, Seferihisar/İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi.
Rodriguez, P.R., Hechanova, M.R.M. (2012). A Study of Culture Dimensions, Organizational Ambidexterity, and Perceived Innovation in Teams. Journal of Management Innovation, 9 (3), 21-33. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242014000300002
Schillo, S. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Company Performance: Can the Academic Literature Guide Managers?. Technology Innovation Management Review, November, 20-25, http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Schillo_TIMReview_November2011.pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 06.05.2016)
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F., Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (5), 864–893. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. doi: 10.2307/270723
Stubner, S, Blarr, H.W., Brands, C., Wulf, T. (2012), Organizational Ambidexterity and Family Firm Performance, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 25 (2), 217-229. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2012.10593570
Tuan, L.T. (2016). Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (1), 145-159. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2476-1
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38 (4), 8-30. doi: 10.2307/41165852
TÜİK Seçilmiş Göstergelerle Hatay 2013 (2014). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Matbaası, http://www.hatay.gov.tr/kurumlar/hatay.gov.tr/İçerikler/İndirme%20Dosyaları/İstatistikler/hatay_il_ istatistikler.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 19.04.2016).
Volery, T., Mueller, S., Siemens, B.V. (2015). Entrepreneur Ambidexterity: A Study of Entrepreneur Beheviours and Competencies in Growth-Orientede Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 33 (2), 109-129. doi: 10.1177/0266242613484777
Wang, C.L., Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-Tech Firms. British Journal of Management, 25 (1), 58-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables. Problems and Remedies. R.H. Hoyle (Ed.). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications içinde, pp. 56-75. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (1), 71–91. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
Yu, R., He, J., Liu, Z. (2014). The Co-volution of Organizational Culture Transformation and Ambidextrous Capability: A Strategic Orientation Perspective. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 2 (2), 102-105. doi: 10.12720/joams.2.2.102-105
Zahra, S.A., Neubaum, D.O. (1998). Environmental Diversity and the Entrepreneurial Activities of New Ventures. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3 (2), 123–140.
Zhou, K.Z., Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K. (2005). The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 42–60. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.2.42.60756
Zhou, K.Z. (2006). Innovation, Imitation, and New Product Performance: The Case of China. Industrial Marketing Management, 35 (3), 394-402. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.10.006

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Metin Reyhanoğlu

Özden Akın

Yayımlanma Tarihi

20 Haziran 2018

Gönderilme Tarihi

10 Nisan 2017

Kabul Tarihi

4 Ağustos 2017

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2018 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552419

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA56SM96EW

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Reyhanoğlu, M., & Akın, Ö. (2018). Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552419

AMA

1.Reyhanoğlu M, Akın Ö. Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. AÜSBD. 2018;18(2):115-134. doi:10.18037/ausbd.552419

Chicago

Reyhanoğlu, Metin, ve Özden Akın. 2018. “Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 18 (2): 115-34. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552419.

EndNote

Reyhanoğlu M, Akın Ö (01 Haziran 2018) Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 18 2 115–134.

IEEE

[1]M. Reyhanoğlu ve Ö. Akın, “Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”, AÜSBD, c. 18, sy 2, ss. 115–134, Haz. 2018, doi: 10.18037/ausbd.552419.

ISNAD

Reyhanoğlu, Metin - Akın, Özden. “Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 18/2 (01 Haziran 2018): 115-134. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552419.

JAMA

1.Reyhanoğlu M, Akın Ö. Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. AÜSBD. 2018;18:115–134.

MLA

Reyhanoğlu, Metin, ve Özden Akın. “Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, c. 18, sy 2, Haziran 2018, ss. 115-34, doi:10.18037/ausbd.552419.

Vancouver

1.Metin Reyhanoğlu, Özden Akın. Keşfetme ve Mevcudu Geliştirme Stratejilerinin Girişimci Yönlülük ile Performans İlişkisindeki Aracı Rolü: İmalat Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. AÜSBD. 01 Haziran 2018;18(2):115-34. doi:10.18037/ausbd.552419