KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Research Journal of Business and Management / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 3

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE

Murat Ozpehlıvan(OKAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2267-1932
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2022-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez: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.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methodology- Our research was applied to 272 companies operating in the textile sector and the results were analysed in the SPSS.25 program.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Organizational parochialism · narrow-mindedness · administrative shallowness

Abstract

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ozpehlıvan, M. (2022). DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PAROCHIALISM SCALE. Research Journal of Business and Management, Volume: 9 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2022.1630

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (27)

  1. Ascher, W. (2000). Applying classic organization theory to sustainable resource & environmental management. 5th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Law and Institutions Duke University, 1-7.
  2. Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. A holistic construct, administrative science quarterly, 27, 459-489.
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  4. Bennett, J. F. (1962). Short-sighted approach to the payments deficit. Challenge, 10(10), 26-29. DOI: 10.1080/05775132.1962.11469459
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Cronbach, L. J. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Gilbert, A. & Churchill, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64- 73.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. Mendell, J. S. (1977). Convincing management to think future. Planning Review Journal, 5(3), 30-32.
  16. Meyer, J. F. B. & Rice, E. G. (2009). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Mouton Publishers, Amsterdam, 155-192.
  17. 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
  18. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw Hill. New York.
  19. Peter, D. J. (2001). Resistance to change: A new view of an old problem. The Futurist, 35(3), 24-27.
  20. Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Pitman, Marshfield. MA.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. Smith, T. S. (1994). Contemporary sociology. American Sociological Association, 23(1), 133–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2074935
  24. Steiner, L. (1998). Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning. The Learning Organization, 5(4), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810228577
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., Jorseskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25-33.