ORMAN ÜRÜNLERİ SANAYİ SEKTÖRÜNDE KURUMSAL İTİBAR ALGISININ ÇALIŞANLARIN İNOVATİF DÜŞÜNCELERİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Değişen, farklılaşan ve gittikçe zorlaşan üretim ortamlarında örgütler başarılı olmak ve güçlü kalabilmek için sahip oldukları kaynakları tüm yönleriyle değerlendirmek zorundadırlar. Kurumsal itibar ve çalışanların inovatif gücü kaynak sıralamasında artık ilk sıralarda yer bulmaktadır. Kurumsal itibarın yükseltilmesi çalışanların yenilik oluşturma isteklerini destekleyecek ve örgütler piyasa yapılanmasında ilk sıralarda yer alacaktır. Çalışmamızda Orman Ürünleri Sanayi sektörü genelinde kurumsal itibar ile çalışanların inovatif düşünce yapıları arasında nasıl bir bağlantının olduğunun incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yönetici statüsünde yer alan 128 kişi ile yapılan çalışma 6 alt bileşenden oluşan İtibar katsayısı ve 3 alt bileşenden oluşan inovatif davranış algısını oluşturan anket yardımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada kurumsal itibar ve inovatif düşünce ilişkisi, geliştirilen 20 hipotez yardımıyla Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Çalışma sonunda oluşturulan hipotezlerden 6 adedinin kabul edilir olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal İtibar
• İnovatif Düşünce
• Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli
• Orman Ürünleri Sanayi

Examining The Effect of Corporate Reputation Perception On Employees' Innovative Thinking In The Forest Products Industry

Öz

In increasingly challenging and evolving production environments, organizations must fully leverage their resources to succeed and remain strong. Corporate reputation and employees' innovative capabilities have now risen to the top of the resource hierarchy. Enhancing corporate reputation will support employees' desire to innovate, helping organizations secure top positions in market structuring. Our study aims to examine the connection between corporate reputation and employees' innovative thinking within the Forest Products Industry. The research, conducted with 128 managers, utilized a survey that included a Reputation Coefficient comprising six sub-components and an Innovative Behavior Perception Scale comprising three sub-components. The relationship between corporate reputation and innovative thinking was measured using the Structural Equation Model with the help of 20 developed hypotheses. At the end of the study, it was determined that six of the hypotheses were accepted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Corporate Reputation
• Innovative Thinking
• Structural Equation Modeling
• Forest Products Industry

Kaynakça

1. Al-Refaie A. (2015). Effects of Human Resource Management on Hotel Performance Using Structural Equation Modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 293-303.
2. Anderson J.C. and Gerbing D.W. (1984) The Effect of Sampling Error on Convergence, Improper Solutions, and Goodness of Fit Indices for Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 9, 155-173.
3. Alnıaçık Ü. (2001). The Effects of Different Components of Corporate Reputation on Customer Loyalty, Journal of Marketing and Marketing Research, 7(1), 65-96.
4. Bal J. and Gundry J. (1999). Virtual Teaming in the Automotive Supply Chain Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 5(6), 174-193.
5. Berens G., and Van Riel C.B.M. (2004). Corporate Associations in the Academic Literature: Three Main Streams of Thought in the Reputation Measurement Literature, Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161-178.
6. Bagozzi R. P., and Yi Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Model, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
7. Caruana A., Ramasashan B., and Krentler K.A. (2004). Corporate Reputation, Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty: What is the Relationship?" In H. E. Spotts (Ed.), Proceedings: Developments in Marketing Science, Coral Gables, FL: Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 301.
8. Davies G., Chun R., Silva R. V. and Roper S. (2004). A Corporate Character Scale to Assess Employee and Customer Views of Organization Reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125-146.

9. Dorman J. S., LaPorte R. E., Stone R. A. and Trucco M. (1990). Worldwide differences in the incidence of type I diabetes are associated with amino acid variation at position 57 of the HLA-DQ beta chain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87(19), 7370-7374.
10. Fombrun C.J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
11. Fombrun C.J., Gardberg N.A. and Barnet M.L. (2000). Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 85-106.
12. Fombrun C.J. (2007). List of Lists: A Compilation of International Corporate Reputation Ratings. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 144-153.
13. Fornell C. and Larcker D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
14. Gotsi M. and Wilson A. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications, 6, 24-30. Hancock G.R. and Mueller R.O. (2006). Structural equation modeling: a second course, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc., pp.432.
15. Hum S.H. and Leow L.H. (1996). Strategic Manufacturing Effectiveness: An Empirical Study Based on the Hayes-Wheelwright Framework. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16(4), 4-18.
16. Janssen O., (2000). Job Demands, Perceptions of Effort Reward Fairness and Innovative Work Behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
17. Kacır Ü. and Sönmez F. (2024). The Effect of Innovation Studies on Corporate Reputation Perception in Businesses. Journal of Dicle University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(27), 282-314.
18. Kalaycı Ş. (2009). SPSS Applied Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Asil Publishing Distribution. ISBN: 975-9091-14-3. Ankara.
19. Liu Q. (2011). Promoting Innovation in China by Sharing Resources in Clusters: The New Firm Perspective. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(3), 242-256.
20. Marvel M. R., Griffin A., Hebda J. and Vojak B. (2007). Examining The Technical Corporate Entrepreneurs' Motivation: Voices from The Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 753-769.
21. Netemeyer R. G., Maxham J. G. and Pullig C., (2005). Conflicts in the Work-Family Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer Purchase Intent. Journal of Marketing, 69, 130-143.
22. Newell S.J. and Goldsmith R.E. (2001). The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate Credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247.
23. Rindova V.P., Williamson I.O. and Petkova A.P. (2010). Reputation as an Intangible Asset: Reflections on Theory and Methods in Two Empirical Studies of Business School Reputations. Journal of Management, 36(3), 610-619.
24. Saeed M.M. and Arshad F. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Source of Competitive Advantage: The Mediating Role of Social Capital and Reputational Capital. Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, 19(4), 219-232.
25. Sarıkaya M. (2019). A Research on the Role of Technology Level in the Effect of Corporate Reputation Perception on Employee's Innovative Behavior, Pamukkale University, Institute of Social Sciences, PhD Thesis, 168, Denizli.
26. Sharma S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques, John Wiley& Sons Inc., New York.
27. Uzkurt C. (2017). Innovation Management and Leadership. Journal of Court of Accounts, 80(1), 57-83.
28. Yücel L. (2021). The Role of Corporate Reputation in the Relationship between Product Differentiation Strategy and Innovation, PhD Thesis, Haliç University Institute of Postgraduate Education, Istanbul.
29. Yücel L., Becan M., and Şimşek H. (2022). The Relationship between Innovation and Corporate Reputation in the Context of Organizational Psychological Capital. Bitlis Eren University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Academic İzdüşüm Journal, 7(2), 41-53.
30. Walsh G. and Beatty S.E. (2007). Customer-Based Corporate Reputation of a Service Firm: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 127-143.
31. Web-1: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/, consulted 5 February 2024.