IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ON INNOVATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN TURKISH BANKING SECTOR

Yıl 2021, , 1 - 23, 30.01.2021

Beytullah Mısırlı , Murat Kasımoğlu

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.753858

Öz

In the article, we aimed to consider the structural factors that constitute the organizational structure as a whole and to examine the combined effects of these factors on innovation. Within the scope of empirical research, we held interviews with a total of 18 senior executives from the banking sector and representatives of consulting firms. We also considered data provided from banks and regulatory agencies for descriptive and content analysis. The results obtained using the relation model formed in the conceptual framework and the reference density based on coding were analyzed by discourse analysis technique. Our results clearly reveal the combined effects of the factors that make up the organizational structure on the innovativeness of organizations. The results showing the compound effect of the “environmental, competition and technical system” situational factors as the highest show that the effect of “organizational size and age” on innovation is relatively low. The ones that have the highest impact among the design factors are “internal access and cooperation, vertical / horizontal decentralization and relationship arrangements”. It is seen that “corporate culture & senior management support, budget and resources, and technological tools and processes” are determinative among the innovation factors. In addition, our results indicate the strong impact of innovation on the innovation ecosystem, in which organizations interact intensely. The contribution or our paper could be considered for purposes of strategic planning, reorganization, benchmarking, innovational transformation and productivity applications in corporate or sectoral scale.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Structure, Innovation, Turkish Banking Industry

ÖRGÜT YAPILARININ YENİLİKÇİLİK ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE AMPİRİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Makalede, örgüt yapısını meydana getiren yapısal faktörlerin bütünsel olarak ele alınması ve söz konusu faktörlerin yenilikçiliğe olan bileşik etkilerinin incelenmesi amaçlandı. Makaleye konu olan ampirik araştırma kapsamında; üç tanesi pilot çalışma olmak üzere Türkiye bankacılık sektöründen toplam 18 üst düzey yönetici ve danışmanlık firma temsilcisiyle 2017-2019 yılları arasında yapılan görüşmeler, gözlemler, düzenleyici kuruluşlar ve bankalardan sağlanan veriler betimsel ve içerik analiziyle incelendi. Kavramsal çerçeve kısmında oluşturulan ilişki modeli ile kodlamaya bağlı referans yoğunluğu kullanılarak elde edilen sonuçlar söylem analizi tekniğiyle analiz edildi. Araştırmanın sonuçları örgütsel yapıyı oluşturan faktörlerin örgütün yenilikçiliği üzerindeki bileşik etkilerini açıkça ortaya koymaktadır. “Çevre, rekabet ve teknik sistem” durumsal faktörlerinin bileşik etkisini en yüksek olarak gösteren sonuçlar, “örgütsel büyüklük ve yaş” faktörlerinin yenilikçiliğe etkisinin görece düşük düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Tasarımsal faktörlerden en yüksek etkiye sahip olanlar ise “iç erişim ve iş birliği, dikey/yatay ademi merkeziyetçilik ve ilişki düzenlemeleri” olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Yenilikçilik faktörleri içerisinde “kurum kültürü & üst yönetim desteği, bütçe ve kaynaklar ile teknolojik araç ve süreçlerin” belirleyici olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca örgütlerin yoğun etkileşim halinde bulunduğu inovasyon ekosistemi ile olan ilişkilerini oluşturan unsurların yenilikçiliğe olan güçlü etkisi dikkat çekmektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçları konuyla ilgili alan yazına katkı sağlarken, kurumsal ve sektörel ölçekte gerçekleştirilecek stratejik planlama, reorganizasyon, kıyaslama, inovasyon dönüşümü ve verimlilik uygulamaları için değerlendirilebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgüt yapısı, Yenilikçilik, İnovasyon, Türkiye bankacılık sektörü

Kaynakça

• Alexander, L. & Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams In Pursuit Of Radical Innovation: A Goal Orientation Perspective. Academy of Management Review. 39 (4), 423-438.
• Annala, U. & Forsman, H. (2011). Small enterprises as innovators. The shift froma lowperformer to a high performer. International Journal of Technology Management. 56 (2/3/4), 154-171.
• 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.
• Boer, H. & During, W. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process, and organizational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management. 22 (1-3), 83–107.
• 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.
• Carnabuci, G. & Dioszegi, B. (2015). Social Networks, Cognitive Style, And Innovative Performance: A Contingency Perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 58 (3), 881-1042.
• Daft, R. (2006). Organization Theory and Design. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal. 34 (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. 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, Elsevier. 69 (2), 831-848.
• Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company documentation. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.
• 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.
• Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2008). Could HRM support organizational innovation? International Journal of Human Resource Management. 19 (7), 1208-1221.
• 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. 59 (2), 436-459.
• King, N. & Anderson, N. (1995). Innovation and Change in Organizations. London: Cengage Learning.
• Kocel, T. (2001). İşletme Yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Beta.
• Laforet, S. (2013). Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector. Journal of World Business. 48 (4), 490-502.
• Lam, A. (2010). Innovative organizations: Structure, learning, and adaptation. Madrid, Spain: BBVA.
• LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Ethnographic Data Collection in Evaluation Research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 4 (3), 387-400.
• 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.
• Micheli, P., Schoeman, M., Baxter, D. & Goffin, K. (2012). New business models for public-sector innovation: successful technological innovation for government. Research-Technology Management. 55 (5), 51-57.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Engle-wood Cliffs. New York: J: Prentierg ce‐Hall, inc.
• 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.
• Oliveir, F. & Marzábal, O. R. (2019). Structural characteristics and organizational determinants as obstacles to innovation in small developing countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. (140), 306-314.
• 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. 2 (1), 27-37.
• Rhéaume, L. & Gardoni, M. (2015). Strategy-making for innovation management and the development of corporate universities. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 10 (1), 73-84.
• Schilling, M. A. (2006). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
• Sharmelly, R. (2017). Crafting a winning innovation strategy. Strategic Direction. 33 (3), 8-11.
• Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation. London: Wiley.
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. (1997). Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change: Managing Innovation. London: Wiley.
• Türkiye Bankalar Birliği (2017). İstatistiki Raporlar / Banka, Çalışan ve Şube Bilgileri Raporu. (TBB-Eylül 2017). https://www.tbb.org.tr/Content/Upload/istatistikiraporlar/ekler/851/Banka_Calisan_ve_Sube_ Sayilari-Eylul_2017.pdf.
• 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 Yılmaz, H. (2016). Stratejik İnovasyon Yönetimi. İstanbul: Beta.
• Yin, D., Ming, X. & Zhang, X (2020). Sustainable and smart product innovation ecosystem: An integrative status review and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 274, 123-128.
• Zahoor, N. & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2020). Inter-organizational collaboration and SMEs’ innovation: A systematic review and future research directions. Scandinavian. Journal of Management. 36 (2), 101-109.
• Zeng, J., Zhang, W., Matsui, Y., & Zhao, X. (2017). The impact of organizational context on hard and soft quality management and innovation performance. International Journal of Production Economics. (185), 240- 251.