Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES

Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 875 - 878, 30.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the level of
organizational ambidexterity in terms of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
and to detect how many SMEs are involved in the ambidextrous group in Turkey. Data was collected with using
convenience sampling method from managers working in different sectors in
Turkey. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 21.0.  Findings revealed that
approximately 50% of SMEs (298 enterprises) are the high-level
ambidexterity.  Ambidexterity means to an
organization’s ability to pursue both exploitative and exploratory orientation.
Ambidextrous organizations can use exploitative and exploratory strategies
concurrently. Accordingly, in today's business world where change,
environmental uncertainty, and sustainable competitive advantage are important,
organizational ambidexterity provides organizations adaptability capabilities.
Also, this study provides theoretical and practical implications for further
research. 

References

  • Akdoğan, Ş., Akdoğan, A. ve Cingöz, A. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: An empirical examination of organizational factors as antecedents of organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 3(2): 17-27.
  • Bayarçelik E. B., Özşahin, M. ve Yıldız, B. (2017). Strateji tipleri ile yenilik performansı ilişkisinde stratejik karar verme hızının şartlı değişken (moderator) etkisi. 16. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi, 4 Mayıs-6 Mart, İzmir.
  • Benner, M. J. ve Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.
  • Birkinshaw, J. ve Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287-298.
  • Bodwell, W. ve Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2): 193-202.
  • Chaharmahali, S. M. ve Siadat, A. S. (2010). Achieving organizational ambidexterity (Understanding and explaining ambidextrous organizations). Linköping University Department of Menegement and Engineering Strategic Management, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Sweden.
  • Cingöz, A. ve Akdoğan, A. A. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık (organizational ambidexterity): Örgütsel ustalık düzeyini belirlemede araştırıcı ve yararlanıcı stratejilerin etkileşimsel rolü. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 59-67.
  • Erşahan, B., Büyükbeşe, T., Bakan, İ. ve Sezer, B. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık. Bakan, İ. (Ed.). Çağdaş yönetim yaklaşımları (s. 613-627). İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
  • Fındıklı, M. A. ve Pınar, İ. (2014). Örgüt kültürü algısı ve örgütsel çift yönlülük ilişkisi: örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımının aracılık etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1): 155-171.
  • Floyd, S. W. ve Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 154-177.
  • He, Z. L. ve Wong P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494.
  • Hodgkinson, I. R., Ravishankar, M. N. ve Aitken-Fischer, M. (2014). A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. The Service Industries Journal, 34(15): 1234-1252.
  • Kriz, A., Voola, R. ve Yüksel, U. (2014). The dynamic capability of ambidexterity in hypercompetition: qualitative insights. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(4): 287-299.
  • Li, C. R., Lin, C. J. ve Chu, C. P. (2008). The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations. Management Decision, 46(7): 1002-1026.
  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. ve Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646-672.
  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
  • Sarıaslan, H. 1995. Küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmelerin finansmanı için yeni model önerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 50(1): 313-321.
  • Tan, M. ve Liu, Z. (2014). Paths to success: An ambidexterity perspective on how responsive and proactive market orientations affect SMEs’ business performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(5): 420-441.
  • Top, Y., Adanur, H., Öz, M. ve Yaşar, M. (2014). Gümüşhane ili orman ürünleri sanayi işletmelerinin yapısal özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Forestry Faculty of Kastamonu University, 14(1): 24-36.
Year 2017, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 875 - 878, 30.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668

Abstract

References

  • Akdoğan, Ş., Akdoğan, A. ve Cingöz, A. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: An empirical examination of organizational factors as antecedents of organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 3(2): 17-27.
  • Bayarçelik E. B., Özşahin, M. ve Yıldız, B. (2017). Strateji tipleri ile yenilik performansı ilişkisinde stratejik karar verme hızının şartlı değişken (moderator) etkisi. 16. Ulusal İşletmecilik Kongresi, 4 Mayıs-6 Mart, İzmir.
  • Benner, M. J. ve Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.
  • Birkinshaw, J. ve Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287-298.
  • Bodwell, W. ve Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2): 193-202.
  • Chaharmahali, S. M. ve Siadat, A. S. (2010). Achieving organizational ambidexterity (Understanding and explaining ambidextrous organizations). Linköping University Department of Menegement and Engineering Strategic Management, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Sweden.
  • Cingöz, A. ve Akdoğan, A. A. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık (organizational ambidexterity): Örgütsel ustalık düzeyini belirlemede araştırıcı ve yararlanıcı stratejilerin etkileşimsel rolü. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 59-67.
  • Erşahan, B., Büyükbeşe, T., Bakan, İ. ve Sezer, B. (2015). Örgütsel ustalık. Bakan, İ. (Ed.). Çağdaş yönetim yaklaşımları (s. 613-627). İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
  • Fındıklı, M. A. ve Pınar, İ. (2014). Örgüt kültürü algısı ve örgütsel çift yönlülük ilişkisi: örgütsel düzeyde bilgi paylaşımının aracılık etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1): 155-171.
  • Floyd, S. W. ve Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 154-177.
  • He, Z. L. ve Wong P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494.
  • Hodgkinson, I. R., Ravishankar, M. N. ve Aitken-Fischer, M. (2014). A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. The Service Industries Journal, 34(15): 1234-1252.
  • Kriz, A., Voola, R. ve Yüksel, U. (2014). The dynamic capability of ambidexterity in hypercompetition: qualitative insights. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(4): 287-299.
  • Li, C. R., Lin, C. J. ve Chu, C. P. (2008). The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations. Management Decision, 46(7): 1002-1026.
  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. ve Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646-672.
  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
  • Sarıaslan, H. 1995. Küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmelerin finansmanı için yeni model önerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 50(1): 313-321.
  • Tan, M. ve Liu, Z. (2014). Paths to success: An ambidexterity perspective on how responsive and proactive market orientations affect SMEs’ business performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(5): 420-441.
  • Top, Y., Adanur, H., Öz, M. ve Yaşar, M. (2014). Gümüşhane ili orman ürünleri sanayi işletmelerinin yapısal özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Forestry Faculty of Kastamonu University, 14(1): 24-36.
There are 19 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Harun Yildiz

Gulbey Karatas

Publication Date June 30, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Yildiz, H., & Karatas, G. (2017). ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES. PressAcademia Procedia, 3(1), 875-878. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668
AMA Yildiz H, Karatas G. ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES. PAP. June 2017;3(1):875-878. doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668
Chicago Yildiz, Harun, and Gulbey Karatas. “ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES”. PressAcademia Procedia 3, no. 1 (June 2017): 875-78. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668.
EndNote Yildiz H, Karatas G (June 1, 2017) ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES. PressAcademia Procedia 3 1 875–878.
IEEE H. Yildiz and G. Karatas, “ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES”, PAP, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 875–878, 2017, doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668.
ISNAD Yildiz, Harun - Karatas, Gulbey. “ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES”. PressAcademia Procedia 3/1 (June 2017), 875-878. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668.
JAMA Yildiz H, Karatas G. ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES. PAP. 2017;3:875–878.
MLA Yildiz, Harun and Gulbey Karatas. “ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES”. PressAcademia Procedia, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 875-8, doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.668.
Vancouver Yildiz H, Karatas G. ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY IN SMES IN TURKEY: COMBINATION OF CONFLICTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES. PAP. 2017;3(1):875-8.

PressAcademia Procedia (PAP) publishes proceedings of conferences, seminars and symposiums. PressAcademia Procedia aims to provide a source for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers in the area of social and behavioral sciences, and engineering.

PressAcademia Procedia invites academic conferences for publishing their proceedings with a review of editorial board. Since PressAcademia Procedia is an double blind peer-reviewed open-access book, the manuscripts presented in the conferences can easily be reached by numerous researchers. Hence, PressAcademia Procedia increases the value of your conference for your participants. 

PressAcademia Procedia provides an ISBN for each Conference Proceeding Book and a DOI number for each manuscript published in this book.

PressAcademia Procedia is currently indexed by DRJI, J-Gate, International Scientific Indexing, ISRA, Root Indexing, SOBIAD, Scope, EuroPub, Journal Factor Indexing and InfoBase Indexing. 

Please contact to procedia@pressacademia.org for your conference proceedings.