Araştırma Makalesi
PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE

Yıl 2022, Cilt 9, Sayı 3, 184 - 196, 30.09.2022
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630

Öz

Purpose- The aim of this study is to examine the concept of organizational parochialism, which is one of the factors that determine the present and future of organizations, and to apply validity and reliability tests by developing a scale that is thought to measure this concept. Methodology- Our research was applied to 272 companies operating in the textile sector and the results were analysed in the SPSS.25 program. As a result of detailed statistical analyses, the validity and reliability tests of the developed scale were completed and it was determined that the scale statistically measures the concept of organizational parochialism. Findings- According to the results of the research, it has been seen that the concept of organizational parochialism is divided into 5 different subdimensions with 25 items as namely business management, financial management, competitiveness, employment management and production management. Conclusion- In today's intensely competitive environment, businesses focus on the present and they may miss the possible risks of the future. In addition to the possible risks, it is also possible for the organizations to make predictions about the future, to catch potential opportunities in a timely manner and to benefit the organization from them. It is possible to say that businesses that cannot evaluate such risks and opportunities are narrow-minded, especially in terms of management manner. In this study, a scale measuring the concept of organizational parochialism and its sub-dimensions, which was determined that have not been researched before in social sciences as a result of the literature review, was developed. In our research, it is possible to indicate that the concept has been confirmed by both the data obtained from the organizational behaviour literature and the statistical data on its measurement.

Kaynakça

  • Ascher, W. (2000). Applying classic organization theory to sustainable resource & environmental management. 5th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Law and Institutions Duke University, 1-7.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. A holistic construct, administrative science quarterly, 27, 459-489.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Bennett, J. F. (1962). Short-sighted approach to the payments deficit. Challenge, 10(10), 26-29. DOI: 10.1080/05775132.1962.11469459
  • Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1982). the role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behaviour. Development of cognition, affect, and social relations. Psychology Press, 12(3),64-78.
  • Campbell, J.M. & Campbell, R.A. (1992). Economic short-sightedness: one cause and cure. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington. D.C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/24651-MS
  • Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
  • Denis, J. D., (1994). Organizational form and the consequences of highly leveraged transactions: Kroger's recapitalization and Safeway's LBO. Journal of Financial Economics, 36(2), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(94)90024-8
  • Friedman M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. in: Zimmerli W.C., Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Berlin. Heidelberg, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
  • Garver, M. S. & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modelling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.
  • Gilbert, A. & Churchill, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64- 73.
  • Hauan A. & Johannessen JA. (1993). Organizational cybernetics. In: Stowell F.A., West D., Howell J.G. (eds) Systems Science, Springer. Boston. MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2862-3_31
  • Ilari, A. (2013). Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 110- 114. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2013.736203
  • Llusar, J. C. B. & Zornoza, C. C. (2002). Development and validation of a perceived business quality measurement instrument. The Global Voice of Quality, 4(4), 585-588.
  • Mendell, J. S. (1977). Convincing management to think future. Planning Review Journal, 5(3), 30-32.
  • Meyer, J. F. B. & Rice, E. G. (2009). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Mouton Publishers, Amsterdam, 155-192.
  • Nonaka, I., Chia, R., Holt, R., Peltokorpi, V. (2014). Wisdom. Management and organization. Management Journal, 45(4), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614542901
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw Hill. New York.
  • Peter, D. J. (2001). Resistance to change: A new view of an old problem. The Futurist, 35(3), 24-27.
  • Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman, Marshfield. MA.
  • Provost, L. & Leddick, S. (1993). How to take multiple measures to get a complete picture of organizational performance. National Productivity Review, 12(4), 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040120406
  • Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality Management, 10(7), 1047-1075.
  • Smith, T. S. (1994). Contemporary sociology. American Sociological Association, 23(1), 133–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2074935
  • Steiner, L. (1998). Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810228577
  • Tobias, L. L. (2004). The thriving person and the thriving organization parallels and linkages, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.3
  • Wallnöfer, M. & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: a systematic review and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12030
  • Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., Jorseskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33.

Yıl 2022, Cilt 9, Sayı 3, 184 - 196, 30.09.2022
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Ascher, W. (2000). Applying classic organization theory to sustainable resource & environmental management. 5th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Law and Institutions Duke University, 1-7.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. A holistic construct, administrative science quarterly, 27, 459-489.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Bennett, J. F. (1962). Short-sighted approach to the payments deficit. Challenge, 10(10), 26-29. DOI: 10.1080/05775132.1962.11469459
  • Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1982). the role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behaviour. Development of cognition, affect, and social relations. Psychology Press, 12(3),64-78.
  • Campbell, J.M. & Campbell, R.A. (1992). Economic short-sightedness: one cause and cure. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington. D.C. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/24651-MS
  • Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
  • Denis, J. D., (1994). Organizational form and the consequences of highly leveraged transactions: Kroger's recapitalization and Safeway's LBO. Journal of Financial Economics, 36(2), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(94)90024-8
  • Friedman M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. in: Zimmerli W.C., Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance, Berlin. Heidelberg, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14
  • Garver, M. S. & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modelling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.
  • Gilbert, A. & Churchill, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64- 73.
  • Hauan A. & Johannessen JA. (1993). Organizational cybernetics. In: Stowell F.A., West D., Howell J.G. (eds) Systems Science, Springer. Boston. MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2862-3_31
  • Ilari, A. (2013). Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 110- 114. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2013.736203
  • Llusar, J. C. B. & Zornoza, C. C. (2002). Development and validation of a perceived business quality measurement instrument. The Global Voice of Quality, 4(4), 585-588.
  • Mendell, J. S. (1977). Convincing management to think future. Planning Review Journal, 5(3), 30-32.
  • Meyer, J. F. B. & Rice, E. G. (2009). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Mouton Publishers, Amsterdam, 155-192.
  • Nonaka, I., Chia, R., Holt, R., Peltokorpi, V. (2014). Wisdom. Management and organization. Management Journal, 45(4), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614542901
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw Hill. New York.
  • Peter, D. J. (2001). Resistance to change: A new view of an old problem. The Futurist, 35(3), 24-27.
  • Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman, Marshfield. MA.
  • Provost, L. & Leddick, S. (1993). How to take multiple measures to get a complete picture of organizational performance. National Productivity Review, 12(4), 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040120406
  • Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality Management, 10(7), 1047-1075.
  • Smith, T. S. (1994). Contemporary sociology. American Sociological Association, 23(1), 133–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2074935
  • Steiner, L. (1998). Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810228577
  • Tobias, L. L. (2004). The thriving person and the thriving organization parallels and linkages, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.3
  • Wallnöfer, M. & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: a systematic review and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12030
  • Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., Jorseskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Beşeri Bilimler, Ortak Disiplinler, İşletme
Bölüm Articles
Yazarlar

Murat OZPEHLIVAN Bu kişi benim (Sorumlu Yazar)
OKAN UNIVERSITY
0000-0003-2267-1932
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Eylül 2022
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022, Cilt 9, Sayı 3

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { rjbm1180147, journal = {Research Journal of Business and Management}, eissn = {2148-6689}, address = {}, publisher = {PressAcademia}, year = {2022}, volume = {9}, number = {3}, pages = {184 - 196}, doi = {10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630}, title = {DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE}, key = {cite}, author = {Ozpehlıvan, Murat} }
APA Ozpehlıvan, M. (2022). DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE . Research Journal of Business and Management , 9 (3) , 184-196 . DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630
MLA Ozpehlıvan, M. "DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE" . Research Journal of Business and Management 9 (2022 ): 184-196 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/rjbm/issue/72691/1180147>
Chicago Ozpehlıvan, M. "DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE". Research Journal of Business and Management 9 (2022 ): 184-196
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE AU - MuratOzpehlıvan Y1 - 2022 PY - 2022 N1 - doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630 DO - 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630 T2 - Research Journal of Business and Management JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 184 EP - 196 VL - 9 IS - 3 SN - -2148-6689 M3 - doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630 UR - https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630 Y2 - 2022 ER -
EndNote %0 Research Journal of Business and Management DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE %A Murat Ozpehlıvan %T DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE %D 2022 %J Research Journal of Business and Management %P -2148-6689 %V 9 %N 3 %R doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630 %U 10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630
ISNAD Ozpehlıvan, Murat . "DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE". Research Journal of Business and Management 9 / 3 (Eylül 2022): 184-196 . https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630
AMA Ozpehlıvan M. DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE. RJBM. 2022; 9(3): 184-196.
Vancouver Ozpehlıvan M. DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE. Research Journal of Business and Management. 2022; 9(3): 184-196.
IEEE M. Ozpehlıvan , "DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE", Research Journal of Business and Management, c. 9, sayı. 3, ss. 184-196, Eyl. 2022, doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630

Research Journal of Business and Management (RJBM) is a scientific, academic, double blind peer-reviewed, quarterly and open-access online journal. The journal publishes four issues a year. The issuing months are March, June, September and December. The publication languages of the Journal are English and Turkish. RJBM aims to provide a research source for all practitioners, policy makers, professionals and researchers working in all related areas of business, management and organizations. The editor in chief of RJBM invites all manuscripts that cover theoretical and/or applied researches on topics related to the interest areas of the Journal. RJBM publishes academic research studies only. RJBM charges no submission or publication fee.

Ethics Policy - RJBM applies the standards of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). RJBM is committed to the academic community ensuring ethics and quality of manuscripts in publications. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden and the manuscripts found to be plagiarized will not be accepted or if published will be removed from the publication. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. Plagiarism, duplicate, data fabrication and redundant publications are forbidden. The manuscripts are subject to plagiarism check by iThenticate or similar. All manuscript submissions must provide a similarity report (up to 15% excluding quotes, bibliography, abstract, method).

Open Access - All research articles published in PressAcademia Journals are fully open access; immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.