The Tracking of Strategic Thinking in Kutadgu Bilig

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 80, 147 - 178, 01.02.2017

Ali Taş Ahmet Yağmur Ersoy* Kazım Ozan Özer Mahmut Hızıroğlu

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to reveal whether Kutadgu Bilig, which had important contributions to the creation of Turkish management tradition, has emphasis on strategic thinking and offers a conceptual framework that can be referred to in contextual research concerning strategic management. Being one of the most important management books in the world and written by Yusuf Khass Hajib, Kutadgu Bilig was analyzed in its own right through a different methodology than those employed in the disciplines of history and literature and independently of the theories of strategic management. This analysis focuses on the dimensions of strategic thinking and attempts to reveal to what extent the dimensions of strategic thinking are emphasized in the work. The analysis results indicate that Kutadgu Bilig embodies such dimensions of strategic management as holistic perspective, creativity, focusing on not only results but also causes, and hypothesis-orientedness within the management cases and practices in it. The only strategic management dimension that does not take any obvious emphasis in the work is future-orientedness. The analysis of this work hints at the existence of a high-level strategic thinking in Kutadgu Bilig and shows that the work offers a framework that can be referred to in contextual research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Strategy, Strategic Thinking, The dimension of strategic thinking, Kutadgu Bilig, Yusuf Khass Hajib

Kutadgu Bilig’de Stratejik Düşünmenin İzini Sürmek

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Türk yönetim geleneğinin oluşmasında önemli bir katkısı olan Kutadgu Bilig’de stratejik düşünmeye ilişkin vurguların olup olmadığını ortaya koyarak, eserin stratejik yönetimle ilgili bağlamsal araştırmalara referans oluşturabilecek bir kavramsal çerçeve sunup sunmadığını tartışmaktır. Bu çerçevede, Yusuf Has Hacip tarafından yazılmış ve dünyanın en önemli yönetim kitaplarından biri olan Kutadgu Bilig, tarih ve edebiy at disiplinlerindeki incelemelerden farklı bir yöntem anlayışı ve stratejik yönetim alanındaki teorilerden bağımsız olarak incelenmiştir. Bahsedilen bu inceleme, stratejik düşünmeye ilişkin boyutlar temel alınarak, eserin stratejik düşünmenin boyutlarına ne derece vurgu yaptığını tespit etme odağında yapılmıştır. İnceleme sonuçları Kutadgu Bilig’de stratejik yönetimin bütüncül perspektif, yaratıcılık, sonuçlar kadar nedenlere odaklanma ve hipotez yönelimlilik boyutlarının eserde ele alınan yönetim olayları ve uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesinde ve analizinde bir bütün halinde bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Eserde, net vurguya rastlanmayan tek stratejik yönetim boyutunun ise gelecek yönelimlilik olduğu görülmektedir. Esere ilişkin inceleme bir yandan Kutadgu Bilig’de yüksek bir stratejik düşünme düzeyinin varlığına işaret ederken, diğer yandan da eserin bağlamsal araştırmalara referans oluşturabilecek önemli bir çerçeve sunduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Strateji, stratejik düşünme, stratejik düşünmenin boyutları, Kutadgu Bilig, Yusuf Has Hacip

Kaynakça

• Alatas, Seyed Farid (2003). “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences”. Current Sociology 51: 599-633.
• Aldrich, Howard and C. Marlene Fiol (1994). “Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation”. Academy of Management Review 19 (4): 645-670.
• Alon, Ilan et al. (2011). “Globalization of Chinese firms: Theoretical universalism or particularism”. Management and Organization Review 7(2): 191–200.
• Ansoff, Igor and Edward McDonell (1990). “Implementing Strategic Management”. Prentice – Hall. Australian Educational Researcher 31(2).
• Barca, Mehmet (2002). “Stratejik Açı Stratejik Düşünme Düzeyi Tarzı ve Gerekliliği”. Stratejik Boyutuyla Modern Yönetim Yaklaşımları. Ed. İ. Dalay vd. İstanbul: Beta Yay.
• Bonn, Ingrid (2001). “Developing Strategic Thinking as a Core Competency”. Management Decision 39 (1): 63-70. Cheng, Bor - Shiuan, An-Chich Wang and min-Ping Huang (2009). “The Road More Popular Versus the Road Less Travelled: An ‘İnsider›s’ Perspective of Advancing Chinese Management Research”. Management and Organization Review 5 (1): 91–105.
• Dane, Eric and Michael G. Pratt (2007). “Exploring Intuition and Its Role in Managerial Decison Making”. Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 33-54.
• Dess, Gregor G. and Peter. S. Davis (1982). “An empirical investigation of Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies”. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Academy of Management. NewYork.
• (1984). “Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance”. Academy of Management Journal 27: 467-488.
• Graetz, Fiona (2002). “Strategic Thinking versus Strategic Planning: Towards Understanding the Complementaries”. Management Decision 40/5: 456-462.
• Graham, Morris. A and Kevin Baize (2011). “Executive Thinking: From Brightness to Brillinace”. Paperback.
• Grovez, Kevin, Charles Vance and Yongsun Paik (2008). “Linking Linear/Nonlinear Thinking Style Balance and Managerial Ethical Decision-Making”. Journal of Business Ethics 80 (2): 305-325.
• Heracleous, Loizos (1998). “Strategic Thinking or Strategic Planning?”. Long Range Planning 31 (3): 481-487. Accessed April 29, 2010. WilsonWeb.
• Kant, Immanuel (2010). “Katkısız Aklın Eleştirisi”. Çev. Nejat Bozkurt. İstanbul: Say Yay.
• Kao, John (1997). “Jamming the Art and Discipline of Business Creativity”. London: Herper Collins Business.
• Kaufman, Roger (1991). “Strategic Planing Plus, An Organizational Guide”. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
• Kipping, Matthias, Lars Engwall and Behlül Üsdiken (2009). ‘Preface: The transfer of management knowledge to peripheral countries’. International Studies of Management & Organization 38 (4): 3-16.
• Kneller, George (2005). “The Art of Science and Creativity”. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart.
• Lichtenstein, Benyamin, L. Bergmann and Mark Mendenhall (2002). “Non-Linearity and Response-Ability: Emergent Order in 21st-Century Careers”. Human Relations 1: 5-32.
• Miller, Danny and Peter, H. Frisen (1986). “Porter’s (1980) generic strategies and performance: An Empirical examination with American data. Part II: Performance implications”. Organizations Studies 7: 225-261. Mintzberg, Henry. (1994). “The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning”. New York: Free Press.
• (2009). Managing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
• Moldoveanu, Mihnea (2009). “Thinking Strategically about Thinking Strategically: The Computational Structure and Dynamics of Managerial Selection and Formulation”. Strategic Management Journal 30 (7): 737-763.
• Murray, Alan, I. (1988). “A Contingency View of Porter’s “Generic Strategies”. Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 390-400. Nasi, Juha (1991). “Strategic Thinking as Doctrine: Development of Focus Areas and New Insights”. Arenas of Strategic Thinking, Foundation for Economic Education. Ed. Juha Nasi. Helsinki.
• Pettigrew, Adrew, M. (2001). “Management Research after Modernism”. British Journal of Management 12: 61–70