TEKNOLOJİ, ÖRGÜT YAPISI VE PERFORMANS ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLER ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 57 - 72, 01.01.2009

Halis Demir Tarhan Okan

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, teknoloji ve örgüt yapısı arasındaki ilişkilerin örgüt performansını etkileyip etkilemediğinin araştırılmasıdır. Araştırma verileri İstanbul ilinde faaliyet göstermekte olan büyük ölçekli işletmelerin yöneticilerinden elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen toplam 187 adet veriye moderatör ılımlaştırma analiz tekniği uygulanmıştır. Teknolojinin bir moderatör değişken olarak kullanıldığı analizde; analiz sonuçları, örgüt yapısı ve teknolojinin performans üzerindeki direkt etkisini doğrularken, bu değişkenlerin etkileşiminin performans üzerindeki etkisine destek sağlamamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teknoloji, Performans, Örgüt yapısı

A RESEARCH ON THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG TECHNOLOGY, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among technology and organizational structure and organizational performance. A moderator analysis was conducted on the data set obtained from 187 managers of large companies. The results of the analysis in which technology was used as a moderator variable show the existence of the direct influences of technology and organizational structure on the organizational performance. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the interaction of technology and structure has a significant effect on the organizational performance has not been proven

Anahtar Kelimeler

Technology , Performance , Organizational structure

Kaynakça

• AGARWAL, D. (1997). An Empirical investigation of the impact of advanced manufacturing technology on business performance. PhD Dissertation, the City University of New York.
• AKGÜL, A., ÇEVİK, O. (2005). İstatistiksel analiz teknikleri. Ankara: Emek Ofset Ltd. Şti.
• ALBAYRAK, A.S. (2006).Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
• ALEXANDER, J.W., RANDOLPH, W.A. (1985). The Fit between technology and structure as a predictor of performance in nursing subunits. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (4), 844–859. ss.
• 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. ss.
• BRADLEY, S.P., HAUSMAN, J.A., NOLAN, R.L. (1993). Globalization, technology and competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Pres.
• COVIN, J.G., SLEVEN, D.P., HEELEY, M.B. (2001). Strategic decision making in an intuitive vs technocratic mode: Structural and environmental considerations. Journal of Business Research, 52, 51-67. ss.
• DAFT, R.L. (2000). Management. 5th ed., New York: The Dryden Press.
• DALTON, D.R, TODOR, W.D., SPENDOLINI, M.J., FIELDING, G.J. PORTER, L.W. (1980). Organizational structure and performance: a critical review. Academy of Management Review, Vol.5, No.1, 49-64. ss.
• DRUCKER, P. (1996). Yönetim uygulaması. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitapevi.
• FRY, L.W. (1982). Technology-structure research: three critical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 25 (3), 532–552. ss.
• GHANI, K.A., JAYABALAN, V. (2000). Advanced manufacturing technology and planned organizational change. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11 (1), 1-18. ss.
• GHANI, K.A., JAYABALAN, V., SUGUMAR, M. (2002). Impact of advanced manufacturing technology on organizational structure. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 157-175. ss.
• GUPTA, A., COHEN, I., CHIANG, D. (1997). Determining organizational structure choices in advanced manufacturing technology management. Omega, 25 (5), 511-521. ss.
• HARVEY, E. (1968). Technology and the structure of organization. American Sociological Review, 33, 256–258. ss.
• HICKSON, D., PUGH, D., PHEYSEY, D. (1969). Operations technology and organization structure: an empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 378–397. ss.
• HOFFMAN, J. (1988). The Effect of strategic and operational decision making structure on organizational performance: technology as a moderator. PhD Dissertation, The University of Nebraska.
• HUNT, R.G. (1970). Technology and organization. Academy of Management Journal, 13, September, 236-252. ss.
• JIN-BO, S., DA-SHUANG, D., YAN-QUI, S. (2006). The Relationship between change of organizational structure and implementation of advanced manufacturing technology: An empirical study. Iternational Conference on Management Science & Engineering, 5-7 October 2006, 782-786. ss.
• JOYCE, W., SLOCUM, J.W., GLINOW, M.A.V. (1982). Person-situation interaction: competing models of fit. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3, 265– 280. ss.
• KAŞLI, M. (2007). İş özellikleri modelinin otel işletmelerinde uygulanabilirliğine yönelik bir araştırma. Doğuş üniversitesi Dergisi, 8 (2), 159–174. ss.
• KHANDWALLA, P.N. (1974). Mass output orientation of operations technology and organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 74–97. ss.
• KOÇEL, T. (1998). İşletme yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta.
• KOÇEL, T. (2005). İşletme yöneticiliği. 10. Bs., İstanbul: Arıkan.
• LIKER, J.K., HADDAD, G., KARLIN, J. (1999). Perspectives on technology and work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 575–96. ss.
• LOUADI, M.E. (1998). The Relationship among organization structure, information technology and information processing in small canadian firms. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15(2), 180-199. ss.
• MOHR, L.B. (1971). Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (4), 444–459. ss.
• NEGANDHI, A., REIMANN, B.C. (1973). Correlates of decentralization: closed and open systems perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 570–582. ss.
• REIMANN, B.C. (1980) Organization, structure and technology in manufacturing: System versus work flow level perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 23 (1), 61–77. ss.
• SNOW, C.C., LAWRENCE, G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317–336. ss.
• ŞENCAN, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde, güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin.
• WENG, H. (1997). A Contingency approach to explore the relationships among structure, technology and performance in academic library departments. PhD Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey.
• WOODWARD, J. (1965). Industrial organization: theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.
• XIAO-LIN, S., YE-ZHUANG, T., GUO-GANG, C. (2007). The Empirical study of advanced manufacturing technology on organizational structure and human resources management. 14th International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, August 20-22, 2007, 1548-1553. ss.
• YAFFEE, R.A. (2003), Common correlation and reliability analysis with SPSS for windows. [Erişim adresi]: <http://www.nyu.edu/acf/socsci/Docs /intracls.html> date updated: 6 June 2003., [Erişim tarihi: Haziran, 2007].
• ZEITNER, M. (1998). Test anxiety: the state of the art. Springer.