Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2018, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 566 - 582, 30.11.2018

Çiğdem Kaya

Abstract

References

  • Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2009). “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, 20 (4): 696-717.
  • Baird, K., Harrison, G. ve Reeve, R. (2007). The Culture Of Australian Organizations And Its Relation With Strategy. International Journal of Business Studies; 15 (1): 15-41.
  • Bakoğlu, R. (2003). Kaynak Bazlı Firma Teorisi Kapsamında Değişen Rekabet Avantajı Kavram ve Anlayışı. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi; 1: 65-76.
  • Bakoğlu, R. (2004). Strateji ve Stratejik Yönetim Kavramlarını Yeniden Düşünme. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, Sayı:67, Nisan, Mayıs, Haziran.
  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal Of Management, 17 (1): s.117.
  • Cassidy, D. (2003). Maximizing shareholder value: The risks to employees, customers and the community. Corporate Governance; 3 (2): 32-37.
  • Charreaux, G., Desbrieres, P. (2001). Corporate Governance: Stakeholder Value Versus Shareholder Value. Journal of Management & Governance; 5 (2): 107-128.
  • Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change, Human Relations, 57 (9): 1145-1177.
  • De Wit, B. ve Meyer R. (1998). Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Demb, A. ve Neubauer, F. (1998). Corporate Governance: Lifespace and Accountability. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 820-829, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Dinçer, Ö. (1998). Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politikası. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
  • Dockery, E., Herbert, W.E., Taylor, K. (2000). Corporate governance, managerial strategies and shareholder wealth maximisation: A Study of large European Companies. Managerial Finance; 26 (9): 21-35.
  • Doyle, P. (2001). Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of Brand Management; 9 (1): 20-30.
  • Duyck, John A. (1998). Value Based Management: Developing A Systematic Approach to Creating Shareholder Value. Book Review in The Academy of Management Executive, 12 (2): 102.
  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
  • Ekanayake, S. (2004). Agency Theory, National Culture and Management Control Systems. The Journal of the American Academy of Business; 4 (1): 49-54.
  • Fang, S.-C. ve Wang, J.-F. (2006). Effects of Organizational Culture and Learning on Manufacturing Strategy Selection: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Management; 23 (3): 503-514.
  • Freeman, E. ve Reed, D. (1998). Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 829-838, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A., Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and "The Corporate Objective Revisited". Organization Science; 15 (3): 364-369.
  • Gibson, G. B. and Birkinshaw, J.(2004). “The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 209-226.
  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E. (2006). “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, 693-706.Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. and Malak, N. (2002). Core Competence for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Structured Methodology for Identifying Core Competence. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 49 (1): 28-35.
  • Hau-Siu Chow, Irene; Liu, Shan S. (2007). Business Strategy, Organizational Culture, and Performance Outcomes in China's Technology Industry. HR. Human Resource Planning; 30 (2): 47.
  • He, Z., and Wong, P. (2004): Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, 15: 481-494.Hillman, Amy J.; Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards Of Directors And Firm Performance: Integrating Agency And Resource Dependence Perspectives. Academy of Managemenf Review; 28 (3): 383-396.
  • Johnson, G. ve Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring Corporate Strategy. 5. Basım, Prentice Hall.
  • Johnson, B., Natarajan, A., Rappaport, A. (1985). Shareholder returns and corporate excellence. Journal of Business Strategy, 6(2): 52-62.
  • Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., and Veiga, J. (2006): Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, 32: 646-672.
  • MacDonald, R. (2005). A template for shareholder value creation on M&As. Strategic Direction; 21 (5): 3-10.
  • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
  • McCarthy, B. F. (2004). Instant gratification or long-term value? A lesson in enhancing shareholder wealth. The Journal of Business Strategy; 25 (4): 10-17.
  • Malinowski, B. (1992). Bilimsel Bir Kültür Teorisi. Çev. Saadet Özkal, 1. Basım, İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
  • Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy Safari. New York: The Free Press.
  • Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J. 1999. Reflecting on the Strategy Process, Sloan Management Review. 40 (3): 21-30.
  • Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M. (2005). A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy: The development an use of the “six markets” model. European Journal of Marketing; 39 (7/8): 855-871.
  • Post, Frederick R. (2003). A Response to “The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique”. Mid - American Journal of Business; 18 (1): 25-35.
  • Rappaport, A. (1998). Shareholder value and corporate purpose. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 820-829, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Sarvan, F., Arıcı, E.D., Özen J., Özdemir, B., İçigen, E.T. (2003). On Stratejik Yönetim Okulu: Biçimleşme Okulunun Bütünleştirici Çerçevesi. Akdeniz İ.B.B.F.Dergisi (6): 73-122.
  • Schwartz, H., Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy. Organizational Dynamics, Yaz:31-48.
  • Sheikholeslami, Mehdi. (2001). EVA, MVA, and CEO Compensation. American Business Review; 19 (1):13
  • Springett, N. (2004). Corporate purpose as the basis of moral leadership of the firm. Strategic Change, 13 (6): 297-307.
  • Tushman, M., and O'Reilly, C. (1996): Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, 38: 8-30.
  • Ülgen H., Mirze, S.K. (2004). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. 3. Baskı, İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
  • Welch, D., Tahvanainen, M. ve Worm, V. (2005). Implications of Short-term International Assignments, European Management Journal, 23 (6): 663-673.
  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, (5):171.
  • Yoshimori, M. (1995). Whose Company Is It? The Concept of the Corporation in Japan and the West; Long Range Planning, 28 (4): 33-44.
  • Zsolnai, L. (2003). Decision Making in Multiple Value Perspectives. International Journal of Value - Based Management; 16 (3): 281-290.

ÖRGÜTSEL AMAÇ PARADOKSLARININ STRATEJİK YÖNETİM OKULLARI’NDAN KÜLTÜR OKULU AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2018, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 566 - 582, 30.11.2018

Çiğdem Kaya

Abstract

Stratejinin
oluşum sürecine yönelik yaklaşımlardan kültürel yaklaşım, strateji oluşumunun
kolektif bir süreç olduğunu ve stratejinin örgüt kültüründe köklendiğini
belirtmektedir. Dolayısıyla örgütlerin amaçlarına ulaşmaya çalışırken
izledikleri yollar örgüt kültürüyle yakından ilişkilidir. Örgütlerin birincil
amacı hayatta kalmak olup, bunu sağlayabilmek için de kâr elde
etmeleri ve çevrenin de onayını alarak “meşrulaşmaları” gerekmektedir. Örgütsel
amacı başarma göstergesi, kârlılık ve sorumluluktur. Fakat kârlılık ve
sorumluluk da kendi içinde bir paradoksa sahiptir. Örgütler hem hayatlarını
devam ettirebilmek için hem de pay sahiplerinin yatırımlarından getiri elde
etmelerini sağlamak için kârlı olmaları gerekmektedir. Örgütlerin aynı zamanda
paydaş gruplarına (müşteriler, çalışanlar, devlet, tedarikçiler, toplum
üyeleri) karşı da sorumlulukları söz konusudur. Çalışmada bu iki amaç kültür
okulu açısından değerlendirilmekte ve hayatta kalabilmek ve rekabet edebilmek
için her iki amacı başarabilecek çift yönlülük (ambidexterity)  stratejilerinin formüle edilebileceği bir
örgüt kültürünün oluşturulması konusu tartışılmıştır. 

Keywords

Kültür Okulu Örgütsel Amaç Kârlılık ve Sorumluluk Paradoksu

References

  • Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2009). “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, 20 (4): 696-717.
  • Baird, K., Harrison, G. ve Reeve, R. (2007). The Culture Of Australian Organizations And Its Relation With Strategy. International Journal of Business Studies; 15 (1): 15-41.
  • Bakoğlu, R. (2003). Kaynak Bazlı Firma Teorisi Kapsamında Değişen Rekabet Avantajı Kavram ve Anlayışı. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi; 1: 65-76.
  • Bakoğlu, R. (2004). Strateji ve Stratejik Yönetim Kavramlarını Yeniden Düşünme. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, Sayı:67, Nisan, Mayıs, Haziran.
  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal Of Management, 17 (1): s.117.
  • Cassidy, D. (2003). Maximizing shareholder value: The risks to employees, customers and the community. Corporate Governance; 3 (2): 32-37.
  • Charreaux, G., Desbrieres, P. (2001). Corporate Governance: Stakeholder Value Versus Shareholder Value. Journal of Management & Governance; 5 (2): 107-128.
  • Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change, Human Relations, 57 (9): 1145-1177.
  • De Wit, B. ve Meyer R. (1998). Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Demb, A. ve Neubauer, F. (1998). Corporate Governance: Lifespace and Accountability. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 820-829, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Dinçer, Ö. (1998). Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politikası. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
  • Dockery, E., Herbert, W.E., Taylor, K. (2000). Corporate governance, managerial strategies and shareholder wealth maximisation: A Study of large European Companies. Managerial Finance; 26 (9): 21-35.
  • Doyle, P. (2001). Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of Brand Management; 9 (1): 20-30.
  • Duyck, John A. (1998). Value Based Management: Developing A Systematic Approach to Creating Shareholder Value. Book Review in The Academy of Management Executive, 12 (2): 102.
  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
  • Ekanayake, S. (2004). Agency Theory, National Culture and Management Control Systems. The Journal of the American Academy of Business; 4 (1): 49-54.
  • Fang, S.-C. ve Wang, J.-F. (2006). Effects of Organizational Culture and Learning on Manufacturing Strategy Selection: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Management; 23 (3): 503-514.
  • Freeman, E. ve Reed, D. (1998). Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 829-838, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A., Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and "The Corporate Objective Revisited". Organization Science; 15 (3): 364-369.
  • Gibson, G. B. and Birkinshaw, J.(2004). “The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 209-226.
  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E. (2006). “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, 693-706.Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. and Malak, N. (2002). Core Competence for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Structured Methodology for Identifying Core Competence. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 49 (1): 28-35.
  • Hau-Siu Chow, Irene; Liu, Shan S. (2007). Business Strategy, Organizational Culture, and Performance Outcomes in China's Technology Industry. HR. Human Resource Planning; 30 (2): 47.
  • He, Z., and Wong, P. (2004): Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, 15: 481-494.Hillman, Amy J.; Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards Of Directors And Firm Performance: Integrating Agency And Resource Dependence Perspectives. Academy of Managemenf Review; 28 (3): 383-396.
  • Johnson, G. ve Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring Corporate Strategy. 5. Basım, Prentice Hall.
  • Johnson, B., Natarajan, A., Rappaport, A. (1985). Shareholder returns and corporate excellence. Journal of Business Strategy, 6(2): 52-62.
  • Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., and Veiga, J. (2006): Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, 32: 646-672.
  • MacDonald, R. (2005). A template for shareholder value creation on M&As. Strategic Direction; 21 (5): 3-10.
  • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
  • McCarthy, B. F. (2004). Instant gratification or long-term value? A lesson in enhancing shareholder wealth. The Journal of Business Strategy; 25 (4): 10-17.
  • Malinowski, B. (1992). Bilimsel Bir Kültür Teorisi. Çev. Saadet Özkal, 1. Basım, İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
  • Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy Safari. New York: The Free Press.
  • Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J. 1999. Reflecting on the Strategy Process, Sloan Management Review. 40 (3): 21-30.
  • Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M. (2005). A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy: The development an use of the “six markets” model. European Journal of Marketing; 39 (7/8): 855-871.
  • Post, Frederick R. (2003). A Response to “The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique”. Mid - American Journal of Business; 18 (1): 25-35.
  • Rappaport, A. (1998). Shareholder value and corporate purpose. B. De Witt ve R. Meyer (Der), Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, 820-829, International Thompson Business Press.
  • Sarvan, F., Arıcı, E.D., Özen J., Özdemir, B., İçigen, E.T. (2003). On Stratejik Yönetim Okulu: Biçimleşme Okulunun Bütünleştirici Çerçevesi. Akdeniz İ.B.B.F.Dergisi (6): 73-122.
  • Schwartz, H., Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy. Organizational Dynamics, Yaz:31-48.
  • Sheikholeslami, Mehdi. (2001). EVA, MVA, and CEO Compensation. American Business Review; 19 (1):13
  • Springett, N. (2004). Corporate purpose as the basis of moral leadership of the firm. Strategic Change, 13 (6): 297-307.
  • Tushman, M., and O'Reilly, C. (1996): Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, 38: 8-30.
  • Ülgen H., Mirze, S.K. (2004). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. 3. Baskı, İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
  • Welch, D., Tahvanainen, M. ve Worm, V. (2005). Implications of Short-term International Assignments, European Management Journal, 23 (6): 663-673.
  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, (5):171.
  • Yoshimori, M. (1995). Whose Company Is It? The Concept of the Corporation in Japan and the West; Long Range Planning, 28 (4): 33-44.
  • Zsolnai, L. (2003). Decision Making in Multiple Value Perspectives. International Journal of Value - Based Management; 16 (3): 281-290.
There are 45 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Çiğdem Kaya 0000-0001-8307-3501

Publication Date November 30, 2018
Submission Date July 4, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018Volume: 19 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Kaya, Ç. (2018). ÖRGÜTSEL AMAÇ PARADOKSLARININ STRATEJİK YÖNETİM OKULLARI’NDAN KÜLTÜR OKULU AÇISINDAN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 566-582.
 Download Cover Image

Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).