EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ON INNOVATION: A CONCEPTIUAL DESIGN MODEL IN THE BANKING SECTOR

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 40, 158 - 175, 25.06.2021

Beytullah Mısırlı , Murat Kasımoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.762340

Öz

Purpose: In the article, it was aimed to investigate a theoretical model for the combined effects of structural factors on innovation in organizations.
Method: Data obtained from the interviews with top executives in the Turkish banking sector, were examined by descriptive and content analysis in the context of the research.
Findings: The preliminary results of relation model formed the conceptual framework and the reference intensity revealed a compound effect of the "environmental, competition and technical system" situational factors on innovativeness of the organizations. Among the innovation factors, the results also show that “corporate culture and senior management support, budget and resources, technological tools and processes” are determinant with the innovation ecosystem.
Originality: The empirical study to be carried out using the innovation ecosystem model will contribute to the relevant literature. Furthermore, the results of the study can be evaluated in the innovational transformation, reorganization and efficiency practices at sectoral scale.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Structure, Innovation, Turkish Banking Sector

ÖRGÜT YAPILARININ YENİLİKÇİLİK ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE KAVRAMSAL BİR MODEL TASARIMI

Öz

Amaç: Makalede, örgüt yapısını meydana getiren yapısal faktörlerin yenilikçiliğe olan bileşik etkilerine yönelik kuramsal bir modelin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Makaleye konu olan araştırma kapsamında; Türkiye bankacılık sektöründen üst düzey yöneticilerle yapılan görüşmeler, gözlemler ve bankalardan sağlanan veriler betimsel ve içerik analiziyle incelenmiştir.
Bulgular: Kavramsal çerçeve kısmında oluşturulan ilişki modeli ile kodlamaya bağlı referans yoğunluğu kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen araştırmanın pilot çalışma kısmındaki öncül sonuçlar “çevre, rekabet ve teknik sistem” durumsal faktörlerinin örgütlerin yenilikçiliğe bileşik etkisine işaret etmektedir. Yenilikçilik faktörleri içerisinde ise “kurum kültürü ve üst yönetim desteği, bütçe ve kaynaklar, teknolojik araç ve süreçlerin” belirleyici olduğunu gösteren sonuçlar, örgütlerin inovasyon ekosistemi ile olan ilişkilerini meydana getiren unsurların yenilikçiliğe olan etkisine dikkat çekmektedir.
Özgünlük: Araştırmanın ortaya koymuş olduğu inovasyon ekosistem modeli kullanılarak yapılacak ampirik çalışma ilgili alan yazına katkı sağlayacaktır. Ayrıca sektörel ölçekte gerçekleştirilecek inovasyon dönüşümü, reorganizasyon ve verimlilik uygulamalarında da çalışmanın sonuçları değerlendirilebilecektir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgüt yapısı, yenilikçilik, inovasyon, Türkiye bankacılık sektörü

Kaynakça

• Annala, U., & Forsman, H. (2011). Small enterprises as innovators. The shift froma lowperformer to a high performer. International Journal of Technology Management, 56.
• Bailey, K. D. (1982). Methods of Social Research (2. Baskı) New York: The Free Press.
• Berg, B. L., Lune. H. (2019). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, California: Pearson. 101-103.
• Budde, B., Alkemade, F., & Weber, M. (2012). Expectations as a key to understanding actor strategies in the field of fuel cell land hydrogen vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79,, 1072–1083.
• Camison-Zornosa, C., Lapiedra-Alcami, R., Segarra-Cipres, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004). A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size. Organization Studies SAGE, 25 (3), 331-361.
• Daft, R. (2006). Organization Theory and Design. South-Western Cengage Learning.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.34, No.3, 555-590.
• Dewar, R., & Dutton, J. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:An empirical analysis. Management Science, 31(11), 1422-1433.
• Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153.
• Felin, T., & Powell, T. (2016). Designing Organizations for Dynamic Capabilities. University of California, Berkeley, Vol. 58, 4, 78-96.
• Fores, B., & Camison, C. (2015). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of Business Research, 831-848.
• Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company documentation. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.
• Frankelius, P. (2009). Questioning two myths in innovation literature. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 20(1), 40–51.
• Freeman, C. A. (1988). Structural Crises and adjustements, Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.
• Garcia-Zamora, E., Gonzalez-Benito, O., & Munoz-Gallego, P. (2013). Organizational and environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 224-244.
• Germain, R. (1996). The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics innovation adaption. Journal of Business Research, 35, 117-127.
• Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. San Francisco: University of California.
• Gong, Y., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A Multilevel Model Of Team Goal Orientation, Infprmation Exchange, And Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851.
• Jansen, J., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
• Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox As A Mechansim of Change And Innovation In Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 137-159.
• Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundva, B. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy. 36(5), 680-693.
• Khanna, R., Guler, I., & Nerkar, A. (2016). Fail Often, Fail Big, And Fail Fast? Learning From Small Failures And R&D Performance In the Pharmaceutical Industry. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.59, No.2, 436-459.
• King, N., & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and Change in Organizations. Routledge.
• Koçel, T. (2001). İşletme Yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta. Lam, A. (2010). Innovative organizations: Structure, learning, and adaptation. Madrid, Spain: BBVA.
• Laforet, S. (2013). Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector. Journal of World Business, 48(4), 490–502.
• LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1984). Ethnographic data collection in evaluation research. Ethnography in educational evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.
• Mehmood, K., Sonia, F., & Umar, A. (2016). Impact of Organic Structure on Competitive Performance of Pharmaceutical Companies in Pakistan: Study of Mediating Roles. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 36(2), 821-834.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Engle-wood Cliffs. New York: J: Prentierg ce‐Hall, inc.
• Nandakumar, M., Ghobadian, A., & O'Regan, N. (2010). Business-level strategy and performance: The moderating effects of environment and structure. Management Decision, 48(6), 907-939. Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Grijalvo, M. (2016). Open Organizational Structures: A New Framework for the Energy Industry. Journal of Business Research, 69, 5175-5179.
• Nooteboom, B., Haverbeke, V., Duysters, W., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.
• Perrow, C. (1967). A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194-208.
• Pierce, J., & Delbecq, A. (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.2, No.1, 27-37.
• Schilling, M. A. (2006). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change: Managing Innovation. London: Wiley
• Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation. Wiley.
• Türkiye Bankalar Birliği. (2017). TBB / İstatistiki Raporlar / Banka, Çalışan ve Şube Bilgileri Raporu, Eylül 2017.
• Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, analysis and interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, İstanbul: Seçkin, 268-271.