SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Amme İdaresi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3

The relationship between learning from failures and crisis preparedness: the determinants of organizational change

Hatalardan öğrenme ve krize hazırlıklı olma arasındaki ilişki: Örgütsel değişimin belirleyicileri

SALİH ZEKİ İMAMOĞLU
İpek KOÇOĞLU
HÜSEYİN İNCE
HALİT KESKİN
Murat POLAT
ALİ EKBER AKGÜN
Pages
167–189
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Lastly, the findings and managerial implications are discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The increased complexity and uncertainty in the organizational envi- ronment makes organizational change an indispensable part of organizations' survival.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study suggests that organizational change is a concept that has to be examined within the dynamic conditions of the environment, under which organization operates, and proposes that learning from failures and crisis preparedness are the determinants of organizational change.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Lastly, the findings and managerial implications are discussed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The increased complexity and uncertainty in the organizational envi- ronment makes organizational change an indispensable part of organizations' survival. This study suggests that organizational change is a concept that has to be examined within the dynamic conditions of the environment, under which organization operates, and proposes that learning from failures and crisis preparedness are the determinants of organizational change. In this context, the effects of learning from failures and crisis preparedness on organizational change as well as the relationship between these two variables have been empirically investigated. In order to test the research hypotheses, data collected from 155 firms have been through structural equation modeling using AMOS 4.0 software. The results of the analysis have supported the hypotheses. Lastly, the findings and managerial implications are discussed.

Özet

Örgütsel çevrenin artan karmaşıklık ve belirsizlik derecesi, değişimi örgütsel ha- yatın kaçınılmaz bir parçası haline getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, değişimin içinde bulunduğu çevrenin dinamik özellikleri açısından ele alınması gereken bir kavram olduğunu sa- vunmakta, hatalardan öğrenme ve krize hazırlıklı olma derecesinin örgütsel değişimin belirleyicileri olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, hatalardan öğrenme ve krize hazırlıklı olmanın örgütsel değişim üzerindeki etkisi ile birlikte bu iki değişkenin kendi aralarındaki ilişki ampirik olarak test edilmiştir. Önerilen araştırma hipotezlerini test etmek için 155 firmadan toplanan veriler AMOS 4.0 programını kullanarak yapısal eşit- lik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları tüm hipotezlerin desteklendiğini göstermektedir. Son olarak bulgular tartışılarak yöneticilere öneriler sunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

İMAMOĞLU, S. Z., KOÇOĞLU, İ., İNCE, H., KESKİN, H., POLAT, M., AKGÜN, A. E. (2013). The relationship between learning from failures and crisis preparedness: the determinants of organizational change. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3, 167–189. https://ajindex.com/articles/153363

References (9)

  1. Akgün, Ali E., Keskin, Halit, Byrne, John C. (2009), “Organizational emotional capabi- lity, product and process innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 26, Issue 3, s. 103-130.
  2. Aktan, Coşkun C., Şen, Hüseyin (2001), “Ekonomik Kriz: Nedenler ve Çözüm Önerile- ri”, Ekonomik Kriz Özel Sayısı 2, Yıl. 7, Sayı: 42, Kasım-Aralık, s. 1227. Alegre, J., Chiva, R. (2008), “Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test”, Technovation, Vol. 28, s. 315-326.
  3. Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., Barnett, W. P. (1993), “Resetting the clock. The dynamics of organizational change and failure”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 38, s. 51–73.
  4. Argyris, C., Schön, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II ‐ Theory, Method, and Practice, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA. Azzone, Giovanni, Palermo, Tommaso (2011), “Adopting Performance Appraisal and Reward Systems”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 24, No: 1, s. 90-111.
  5. Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizatio- nal research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, s. 421–458.
  6. Beck, Nikolaus, Brüdel, Josef, WoyWode, Michael (2008), “Momentum or Decelera- tion? Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on the Analysis of Organizational Change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No: 3, s. 413-435.
  7. Bellou, Victoria (2008), “Exploring Civic Virtue and Turnover Intention During Orga- nizational Changes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, s. 778-789.
  8. By, Rune T. (2005), “Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No: 4, s. 369-380.
  9. Carmeli, Abraham, Schaubroeck, John, (2008), “Organisational Crisis-Preparedness: The Importance of Learning From Failures”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 41, s 177- 196. Guimaraes, Tor, Armstrong, Curtis (1998), “Empirically Testing the Impact of Change Management Effectiveness on Company Performance”, European Journal of Inno- vation Management, Vol. 1, No: 2, s. 74- 84. Hannan, Michael T., Freeman, John (1977). “The Population Ecology of Organizati- ons”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No: 5, s. 929- 964. Hannan, Michael T., Freeman, John (1984), “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No: 2, s.149- 164 Hargis, Michael, Watt, John D. (2010), “Organizational Perception Management: A Framework to Overc