Geçmişten Günümüze Koşul Bağımlılık Teorisi: Bibliyometrik Bir Araştırma

Öz

Örgütleri ve örgütlerin bağlamsal faktörler ile ilişkilerini ortaya çıkarmaya çalışan koşul bağımlılık teorisi; örgüt kuramı alanında öncü nitelikte olmasından dolayı oldukça önemlidir. Bu teori, örgüt kuramları alanında paradigma dönüşümünü sağlayan, örgütleri anlamak yönünden iç ile dış dinamikler arasındaki ilişkileri açıklamaya çalışan, örgütleri sistem olarak ele alan ve literatüre önemli katkılar sunan bir kuramdır. Bu çalışmada; teoriyi anlamak, diğer örgüt kuramlarından ayrıştırmak, geçmişten günümüze kadar ki gelişim sürecini irdelemek ve hangi kavramlarla ilişkilendirildiğini açıklayabilmek amaçlanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda Web of Science veri tabanında bulunan 1980-2024 yılları arasındaki 741 makale bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Gerek ulusal gerekse uluslararası literatürde benzer bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde sadece Web of Science veri tabanından yararlanılması, işletme ve yönetim alanındaki makaleler ile sınırlı olması çalışmanın kısıtlarındandır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Koşul Bağımlılık Teorisi
• Örgüt Kuramları
• Bibliyometrik Analiz

Contingency Theory from The Past to The Present: A Bibliometric Research

Öz

Contingency theory, which is the first theory that tries to reveal organizations and their relationships with contextual factors, is very important because it is a pioneer in the field of organization theory. Contingency theory is a theory that provides a paradigm shift in the field of organization theories, tries to explain the relationships between internal and external dynamics in terms of understanding organizations, considers organizations as a system and makes important contributions to the literature. In this context, the aim of this research is to understand the contingency theory, to distinguish it from other organizational theories, to examine its development process from past to present and to explain with which concepts it is associated. In this context, 741 articles in the Web of Science database between 1980 and 2024 were evaluated by bibliometric analysis method. There is no similar research in both national and international literature. The limitations of the research are that only the Web of Science database was utilized in obtaining the data and that it was limited to articles in the field of business and management.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Contingency Theory
• Organization Theories
• Bibliometric Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Alhamami, A. A., Hashim, N. A., & Hamid, S. N. (2024). The effect of external social media utilization on business performance of SMEs in Saudi Arabia: the mediating role of market orientation. Operations, Information & Technology, 11(1), 1-21.
2. Bal, F., & Ufacık, O. E. (2024). Liderlik Kavramı Üzerine Bibliyometrik Bir Araştırma. Avrasya Sosyal Ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 193-207.
3. Bal, F., & Yılmaz, E. S. (2024). Doğal Afet Krizlerinde Sosyal Medyanın Rolü Üzerine Yapılmış Çalışmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi. Afet Ve Risk Dergisi, 7(1), 128-138.
4. Chan, Y.-Y., Hu, Q., Hughes, M., & Chang, T. (2024). Paradoxical leadership on firm performance: What role can guanxi HRD practices play? Wiley, 209-327.
5. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 199-217.
6. Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization theory and design. Canada: Cengage Learning.
7. Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
8. Donaldson, L. (2006). The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. Australia: Australian Graduate School of Management.

9. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
10. Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative science quarterly, 514-539.
11. Ellegaard, O. (2018). The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspect. Scientometrics, 116, 181-202..
12. Hamann, P. M. (2017). Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 67, 227-289.
13. Handoko , I., & Tjaturpriono, H. A. (2024). The evolution of organizational design: the case of digital startups. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 1-22.
14. Keskin, H., Akgün, A. E., & Koçoğlu, İ. (2016). Örgüt Teorisi. Ankara: Nobel.
15. Koçel, T. (2018). İşletme Yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
16. Li, X., Li, X., & Ding, S. (2024). Digital transformation and innovation ambidexterity: perspectives on accumulation and resilience effects. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1460-1484.
17. Luthans , F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A General Contingency Theory of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 181-195.
18. Luthans, F. (1973). The contingency theory of management: A path out of the jungle. Business Horizons, 16(3), 67-72.
19. Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, D. T., Nguyen, T. A., & Nguyen, C. D. (2024). Impacts of contingency factors on the application of strategic management accounting in Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2), 1-28.
20. Otley, D. T. (2016). The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Management Account Research , 31, 45-62.
21. Roffia, P., Benavides, M. M., & Carrilero, A. (2024). Cost accounting practices in SMEs: liability of age and other factors that hinder or burst its implementation in turbulent years. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1-25.
22. Sardana, D., Gupta, N., Zhu, Y., Parida,, S., Garg, S., & Paruchuri, S. (2024). Still waters run deep: differences in employee empowerment between public and private sector firms in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-35.
23. Sargut, A. S., & Özen, Ş. (2010). Örgüt Kuramları. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
24. Sayılar, Y. (2013). Kaynak Bağımlılığı Kuramı. D. Taşcı, & E. Erdemir (Dü) içinde, Örgüt Kuramı (s. 48-80). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayını.
25. Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language. Sage, 26(3), 349-377.
26. Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Prentice Hall.
27. Sözen, C. H., & Basım, N. H. (2012). Örgüt Kuramları. İstanbul: Beta .
28. Sumaryo, HASANUDIN, A. I., BASTIAN, E., & RAMDHANI1, D. (2024). Sustainable Green Intangible Asset, Financial Performance, and Sustainable Competitive Advantages. QUALITY, 25(199), 193-204.
29. Tehseen, S., Kayani, U. N., Haider, S. A., Aysan, A. F., Johara, F., Hossain, S. M., & Khali, S. (2024). Unpacking the mechanisms of entrepreneurial bricolage for new venture growth: the mediating roles of new venture adaptiveness and innovative ambidexterity. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-24.
30. Tosi, J. R., Hennry, L., & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of management, 10(1), 9-26.
31. Trullen, J., Hassan, N., Morley , M. J., & Valverde, M. (2024). The devolution of human resource management responsibilities to line managers: a multi-level analysis of contextual influences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(8), 1547-1576.
32. Župič, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429-472.