Journals / Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Organizational Purpose Paradoxes In Terms of The Cultural School as One of Mintzberg's Strategic Management Schools

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

Pages
566–582
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

In this study, these two goals are evaluated from the point of view of cultural school and the issue of creating an organizational culture that can formulate ambidexterity strategies which both aims (profitability and responsibility) can be achieved in order to survive and compete is discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cultural approach to the strategy formation process suggests that strategy formation is a collective process and that the strategy is rooted in organizational culture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, the ways in which organizations pursue their goals are closely related to organizational culture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, these two goals are evaluated from the point of view of cultural school and the issue of creating an organizational culture that can formulate ambidexterity strategies which both aims (profitability and responsibility) can be achieved in order to survive and compete is discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Cultural approach to the strategy formation process suggests that strategy formation is a collective process and that the strategy is rooted in organizational culture. Therefore, the ways in which organizations pursue their goals are closely related to organizational culture. Organizations’ primary purpose is to survive, and to be able to achieve this purpose, they need to make profits and become "legitimate" by getting approval from their environment. The organizational goal achievement indicator is profitability and responsibility. However, profitability and responsibility also have a paradox within themselves. Organizations need to be profitable in order to be able to continue their lives and to enable shareholders to earn returns from their investments. Organizations also have responsibilities to stakeholder groups (customers, employees, the state, suppliers, and community members). In this study, these two goals are evaluated from the point of view of cultural school and the issue of creating an organizational culture that can formulate ambidexterity strategies which both aims (profitability and responsibility) can be achieved in order to survive and compete is discussed.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, Ç. (2022). Evaluation of Organizational Purpose Paradoxes In Terms of The Cultural School as One of Mintzberg's Strategic Management Schools. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 566–582. https://ajindex.com/articles/480592

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2009). “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, 20 (4): 696-717.
  2. 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.
  3. Bakoğlu, R. (2003). Kaynak Bazlı Firma Teorisi Kapsamında Değişen Rekabet Avantajı Kavram ve Anlayışı. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi; 1: 65-76.
  4. 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.
  5. Charreaux, G., Desbrieres, P. (2001). Corporate Governance: Stakeholder Value Versus Shareholder Value. Journal of Management & Governance; 5 (2): 107-128.
  6. 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.
  7. De Wit, B. ve Meyer R. (1998).
  8. Strategy Process, Content, Context an international Perspective. 2. Basım, International Thompson Business Press.
  9. 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.
  10. Dinçer, Ö. (1998). Stratejik Yönetim ve İşletme Politikası. İstanbul:
  11. Beta Yayınevi.
  12. 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.
  13. Doyle, P. (2001). Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of Brand Management; 9 (1): 20-30.
  14. 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.
  15. Ekanayake, S. (2004).
  16. Agency Theory, National Culture and Management Control Systems. The Journal of the American Academy of Business; 4 (1): 49-54.
  17. Fang, S.-C. ve Wang, J.-F. (2006). Effects of Organizational