BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Örgütlerde Yapısal-Stratejik Konfigürasyonlar: Koşulbağımlılık Kuramı, Konfigürasyon Yaklaşımı Bağlamında Örgüt Yapıları Üzerine Önermeler

Yıl 2008, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 155 - 170, 01.10.2008

Hakkı Okan Yeloğlu

Öz

Örgütlerin yaşamsal faaliyetlerini sürdürmeleri ve çevre ile sürekli olarak etkileşim halinde bulunmaları kuramsal anlamda “uyum” kavramını ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Çevre sürekli değişim gösterdiğinde, çevreyi kontrol edebilecek ve bu değişime uyum sağlayabilecek örgütlerin ve örgütsel yapı bileşenlerinin belirlenmesi stratejik anlamda da önem taşımaktadır. Bunun sebeplerinden biri, çevrenin, örgüt tarafından doğrudan denetim altına alınamadığı veya sınırlı olarak denetlenebilme özelliğine sahip bir alan olarak tanımlanması; diğeri ise, örgüte yönelik stratejik kararları verecek kişilerin sınırlı rasyonaliteye sahip olmaları veya çevresel değişkenler hakkında yeterli bilgiye sahip olmamaları şeklinde gösterilebilir. Dolayısı ile örgüt tarafından üretilen stratejilerin örgüt ve çevresi arasındaki ilişkilere yönelik olması, örgütü oluşturan birey ve farklı bölümlerin çevreyi farklı seviyelerde algılayabilmeleri nedeni ile farklılaşması söz konusu olabilmektedir. Oluşan stratejilerin çevre-örgüt etkileşimi bakımından doğru ve uygun tanımlanması ortaya çıkacak uyumun faydasının derecesini de belirleyebilmektedir. Diğer yandan, açık sistem yaklaşımı benimsendiğinde, örgütlerin çevreye uyumunda hem kendi içsel dinamiklerini değiştirmesi hem de stratejik avantaj yakalaması için bir takım zorunlulukları yerine getirmeleri beklenebilir. Zaman içerisinde, farklı çevrelerin sahip olduğu özelliklerin örgüt üzerindeki etkilerinin olumlu olarak yansıyabilmesi için örgütlerin belirli seviyelerde bu özelliklere uyum göstermesi gerekecektir. Aynı zamanda örgütlerin uyum aşamasında var olan yapıyı terk edip farklı bir yapıya dönüşmeleri yine zamana bağlı süreç içerisinde değişebilmektedir. Zamana bağlı gerçekleşen bu sürecin uzunluğu ortaya çıkacak uyumun gerçekleşme olasılığı ile doğrudan ilintilidir. Aynı zamanda, stratejik açıdan hangi tip örgütlerin hangi koşullarda, hangi yapısal değişkenlerini değiştirerek çevreye daha iyi uyum sağlayacağı incelenebilir bir durum olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Adler, Paul ve Bryan Borys (1996), “Two Types Of Bureaucracy: Enabling And Coercive”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 61-89.
  • Child, John (1984), Organization. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Daft, Richard. ve Becker, Selwyn.W. (1978), The Innovative Organization. New York: Elsevier.
  • Donaldson, Lex (1996), The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory. S. Clegg, C. Hardy ve W Nord Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 57-76.
  • Donaldson, Lex (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Thousand Oaks:Sage.
  • Doty, D Harold, Glick, William H ve Huber, George P. (1993), “Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories”, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250.
  • Drago, A. William (1998), “Structure as a Predictor of Strategic Planning Use”, Journal of Applied Business Research, 14(1), 125-137.
  • Drazin, Robert ve Van de Hen, Andrew (1985), “Alternative Foms of Fit in Contingency Theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
  • Ferguson, D. Tamela. ve Ketchen David.J. (1999), “Organizational Configurations and Performance: The Role of Statistical Power in Extant Research”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 385-402.
  • Forte, M., Hoffman, J.J., Lamont, B. ve Brockmann, E.N. (2000), “Organizational Form and Environment: An Analysis of Between-Form and Within-Form Responses to Environmental Change”, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 753-773.
  • Frederickson, W. James (1986), “The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure”, Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 280-297
  • Govindarajan, Vijay (1988), “A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business- Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms With Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 828-853.
  • Hage, Jerald. ve Aiken, Michael (1970), Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House.
  • Hambrick, Donald (1983), “Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles And Snow’s Strategic Types”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 5-26.
  • Hamilton, Gary G. ve Biggart, N. Woolsey (1988), Market, Culture and Authority: A Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East. American Journal of Sociology, 94 Ek: 52-94.
  • Lee, Jonh ve Miller, Danny (1996), “Strategy, Environment and Performance in Two Technological Contexts: Contingency in Korea”, Organization Studies, 17(5), 729-750.
  • Maurice, Marc (1976), “Introduction: Theoretical and Ideological Aspects of the Universalistic Approach To The Study ff Organization”, International Studies of Management & Organization, 6 (3): 3-10.
  • Miller, Danny (1988), “Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
  • Miller, Danny (1981), “Toward a New Contingency Approach: The Search for Organization Gestalts”, Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 1-26.
  • Miller, Danny (1986), “Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis”, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 233-249.
  • Miller, Danny (1987), “Strategy Making and Structure: Analysis and Implications for Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.
  • Miller, Danny (1987), “The Genesis of Configuration”, Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 686-701.
  • Miller, Danny (1992), “Environmental Fit Versus Internal Fit”, Organization Science, 3(2), 159-178.
  • Miller, Danny (1996). “Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 505-512.
  • Miller, Danny ve Whitney, John O. (1999), “Beyond Strategy: Configuration as a Pillar of Competitive Advantage”, Business Horizons, 42 (3), 5-19.
  • Mintzberg, Henry (1979), The Structure of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prenctice-Hall.
  • Mintzberg, Henry ve Lampel, Joseph. (1999), “Reflecting on The Strategy Process”, Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 21-30.
  • Mintzberg, Henry., Lampel, J. ve Quinn, J., Ghoshal, Sumantra (2003), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, Prentice Hall, U.K.
  • Orru, Marco., Biggart, N.W. ve Hamilton,G.G. (1991), Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia.
  • The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, CH: The University of Chicago Press 361-389.
  • Pfeffer, J. (1997), The New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects, NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  • Russell, Robert D. ve Russell, Craig J. (1992), “An Examination of the Effects of Organizational Norms, Organizational Structure, and Environmental Uncertainty on Entrepreneurial Strategy”, Journal of Management, 18(4), 639-656.
  • Schoonhoven, Claudia. B. (1981), “Problems With Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden Within The Language Of Contingency Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349-377.
  • Slevin, P. Dennis ve Covin G. Jeffrey (1997), “Strategy Formation Patterns, Performance, and the Significance of Context”, Journal of Management, 23(2), 189-200.
  • Venkatmaran, N. ve Camillus, John C. (1984), “Exploring the Concept of “Fit” in Strategic Management”, Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 513-525.
  • Venkatraman, N. (1989), “The Concept of Fit in Strtaegy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence”, Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423-444.
  • Whitley, Richard (1992), Societies, firms and markets: The social structuring of business systems. European Business Systems, Sage Publications, 5-45.
  • Whitley, Richard (1994), “Dominant Forms of Economic Organizations in Market Economies”, Organization Studies, 15(2), 153-182
  • Whitley, Richard (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Örgütlerde Yapısal-Stratejik Konfigürasyonlar: Koşulbağımlılık Kuramı, Konfigürasyon Yaklaşımı Bağlamında Örgüt Yapıları Üzerine Önermeler

Yıl 2008, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 155 - 170, 01.10.2008

Hakkı Okan Yeloğlu

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Adler, Paul ve Bryan Borys (1996), “Two Types Of Bureaucracy: Enabling And Coercive”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 61-89.
  • Child, John (1984), Organization. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Daft, Richard. ve Becker, Selwyn.W. (1978), The Innovative Organization. New York: Elsevier.
  • Donaldson, Lex (1996), The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory. S. Clegg, C. Hardy ve W Nord Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 57-76.
  • Donaldson, Lex (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Thousand Oaks:Sage.
  • Doty, D Harold, Glick, William H ve Huber, George P. (1993), “Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Test of Two Configurational Theories”, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196-1250.
  • Drago, A. William (1998), “Structure as a Predictor of Strategic Planning Use”, Journal of Applied Business Research, 14(1), 125-137.
  • Drazin, Robert ve Van de Hen, Andrew (1985), “Alternative Foms of Fit in Contingency Theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
  • Ferguson, D. Tamela. ve Ketchen David.J. (1999), “Organizational Configurations and Performance: The Role of Statistical Power in Extant Research”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 385-402.
  • Forte, M., Hoffman, J.J., Lamont, B. ve Brockmann, E.N. (2000), “Organizational Form and Environment: An Analysis of Between-Form and Within-Form Responses to Environmental Change”, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 753-773.
  • Frederickson, W. James (1986), “The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure”, Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 280-297
  • Govindarajan, Vijay (1988), “A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business- Unit Level: Integrating Administrative Mechanisms With Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 828-853.
  • Hage, Jerald. ve Aiken, Michael (1970), Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House.
  • Hambrick, Donald (1983), “Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles And Snow’s Strategic Types”, Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 5-26.
  • Hamilton, Gary G. ve Biggart, N. Woolsey (1988), Market, Culture and Authority: A Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East. American Journal of Sociology, 94 Ek: 52-94.
  • Lee, Jonh ve Miller, Danny (1996), “Strategy, Environment and Performance in Two Technological Contexts: Contingency in Korea”, Organization Studies, 17(5), 729-750.
  • Maurice, Marc (1976), “Introduction: Theoretical and Ideological Aspects of the Universalistic Approach To The Study ff Organization”, International Studies of Management & Organization, 6 (3): 3-10.
  • Miller, Danny (1988), “Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
  • Miller, Danny (1981), “Toward a New Contingency Approach: The Search for Organization Gestalts”, Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 1-26.
  • Miller, Danny (1986), “Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis”, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 233-249.
  • Miller, Danny (1987), “Strategy Making and Structure: Analysis and Implications for Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.
  • Miller, Danny (1987), “The Genesis of Configuration”, Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 686-701.
  • Miller, Danny (1992), “Environmental Fit Versus Internal Fit”, Organization Science, 3(2), 159-178.
  • Miller, Danny (1996). “Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 505-512.
  • Miller, Danny ve Whitney, John O. (1999), “Beyond Strategy: Configuration as a Pillar of Competitive Advantage”, Business Horizons, 42 (3), 5-19.
  • Mintzberg, Henry (1979), The Structure of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prenctice-Hall.
  • Mintzberg, Henry ve Lampel, Joseph. (1999), “Reflecting on The Strategy Process”, Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 21-30.
  • Mintzberg, Henry., Lampel, J. ve Quinn, J., Ghoshal, Sumantra (2003), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, Prentice Hall, U.K.
  • Orru, Marco., Biggart, N.W. ve Hamilton,G.G. (1991), Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia.
  • The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, CH: The University of Chicago Press 361-389.
  • Pfeffer, J. (1997), The New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects, NewYork: Oxford University Press.
  • Russell, Robert D. ve Russell, Craig J. (1992), “An Examination of the Effects of Organizational Norms, Organizational Structure, and Environmental Uncertainty on Entrepreneurial Strategy”, Journal of Management, 18(4), 639-656.
  • Schoonhoven, Claudia. B. (1981), “Problems With Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden Within The Language Of Contingency Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349-377.
  • Slevin, P. Dennis ve Covin G. Jeffrey (1997), “Strategy Formation Patterns, Performance, and the Significance of Context”, Journal of Management, 23(2), 189-200.
  • Venkatmaran, N. ve Camillus, John C. (1984), “Exploring the Concept of “Fit” in Strategic Management”, Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 513-525.
  • Venkatraman, N. (1989), “The Concept of Fit in Strtaegy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence”, Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423-444.
  • Whitley, Richard (1992), Societies, firms and markets: The social structuring of business systems. European Business Systems, Sage Publications, 5-45.
  • Whitley, Richard (1994), “Dominant Forms of Economic Organizations in Market Economies”, Organization Studies, 15(2), 153-182
  • Whitley, Richard (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Toplam 39 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Hakkı Okan Yeloğlu Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ekim 2008
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2008 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Yeloğlu, H. O. (2008). Örgütlerde Yapısal-Stratejik Konfigürasyonlar: Koşulbağımlılık Kuramı, Konfigürasyon Yaklaşımı Bağlamında Örgüt Yapıları Üzerine Önermeler. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 155-170.