Öz
İşletmelerin mevcut kaynak ve kabiliyetlerini kullanabilme yeteneğine işaret eden örgütsel ustalık kavramı, farklı stratejik uygulamalardan birini seçmek yerine birden çok stratejiyi aynı anda uygulayabilmeyi ifade etmektedir. Örgütsel ustalık stratejisi, işletmelere sağladığı fırsatlar dolayısıyla inovasyon yeteneklerini de artırmaktadır. İşletmelerin birbirinden ayrışmasını ve inovasyon kabiliyetlerinin çıktı olarak ölçümlenmesini sağlayan inovasyon performansı ise farklı işletme stratejilerinin bir arada kullanılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu yaklaşım ışığında bu çalışma, örgütsel ustalık stratejisinin inovasyon performansını artırdığı temel varsayımına göre temellendirilmiş ve bu varsayımı doğrulamıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre örgütsel ustalıkları yüksek olan işletmeler, yüksek inovasyon performansı gösterme eğilimindedirler. Bununla birlikte yeni ekonomi koşulları teknoloji dinamiklerinin hızla değiştiği bir çevre ortamı yaratmaktadır. Teknolojideki hızlı değişime ayak uydurma ve algılama olarak ifade edilen teknolojik dinamizm, örgütsel ustalık ve inovasyon performansı ilişkisinde moderatör değişken olarak tespit edilmiştir. Örgütsel ustalık stratejilerini inceleyen çalışmalar yaygın olarak, kavramın örgütsel performansa olumlu etkisini tespit etmiştir. Bu çalışma ise kavramın inovasyon performansına etkisini ve bu ilişkideki teknolojik dinamizmin rolünü incelemesi dolayısıyla özgün yapıya sahiptir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Beck, N., & Kieser, A. (2003). The complexity of rule systems, experience and organizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(5), 793-814.
- Bell, M., & Albu, M. (1999). Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial clusters in developing countries. World development, 27(9), 1715-1734.
- Bell, M., and K.A.R. Pavitt. (1993). Accumulating technological capability in developing countries. Paper presented at the World Bank’s Annual Conference on Development Economics,Washington, DC.
- Benitez, J., Castillo, A., Llorens, J., & Braojos, J. (2018). IT-enabled knowledge ambidexterity and innovation performance in small US firms: The moderator role of social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131-143.
- Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
- Blinder, A. S. (2006). Offshoring: The next industrial revolution? Foreign Affairs. 85(2): 113–128.
- Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2016). Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: impact on business performance. Baltic Journal of Management.
- Brinkshaw, J. ,& Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organisation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55.
- C. A. O’Reilly and Tushman M. L. (2013). “Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future”. Acad. Manage. Persp., vol. 27, pp. 324–338.
- Cai, J. (2011). Mobile communications in China: levels of technological dynamism. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(2), 123-143.
The Role of Technology Dynamism on The Relationship Between The Organizational Ambidexterity and The Innovation Performance
Öz
The concept of organizational ambidexterity, which refers to the ability of businesses to use their existing resources and capabilities, express to the ability to implement multiple strategies at the same time instead of choosing one of different strategic applications. The organizational ambidexterity strategy also increases the innovation capabilities due to the opportunities it provides to businesses. Innovation performance, which enables businesses to differentiate from each other and measure their innovation capabilities as output, requires the use of different business strategies together. In light of this approach, this study is based on the basic assumption that organizational ambidexterity strategy improves innovation performance and confirmed this assumption. According to the research findings, businesses with high organizational mastery tend to show high innovation performance. However, new economic conditions create an environmental environment where technology dynamics change rapidly. Technological dynamism, which is expressed as adaptation and perception to rapid changes in technology, was determined as the moderator variable in the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and innovation performance. Studies examining organizational ambidexterity strategies have commonly identified the positive effect of the concept on organizational performance. This study has an original structure as it examines the effect of the concept on innovation performance and the role of technological dynamism in this relationship.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Organizational ambidexterity innovation performance technology dynamism
Kaynakça
- Beck, N., & Kieser, A. (2003). The complexity of rule systems, experience and organizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(5), 793-814.
- Bell, M., & Albu, M. (1999). Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial clusters in developing countries. World development, 27(9), 1715-1734.
- Bell, M., and K.A.R. Pavitt. (1993). Accumulating technological capability in developing countries. Paper presented at the World Bank’s Annual Conference on Development Economics,Washington, DC.
- Benitez, J., Castillo, A., Llorens, J., & Braojos, J. (2018). IT-enabled knowledge ambidexterity and innovation performance in small US firms: The moderator role of social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131-143.
- Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
- Blinder, A. S. (2006). Offshoring: The next industrial revolution? Foreign Affairs. 85(2): 113–128.
- Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2016). Innovation-receiving subsidiaries and dual embeddedness: impact on business performance. Baltic Journal of Management.
- Brinkshaw, J. ,& Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organisation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55.
- C. A. O’Reilly and Tushman M. L. (2013). “Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future”. Acad. Manage. Persp., vol. 27, pp. 324–338.
- Cai, J. (2011). Mobile communications in China: levels of technological dynamism. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(2), 123-143.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | İnovasyon Yönetimi |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makalesi |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 27 Aralık 2020 |
| IZ | https://izlik.org/JA69PF58WD |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2020 Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1 |