Organizasyonel yapının analizi
Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.
- Tez No: 39889
- Danışmanlar: PROF.DR. HALUK ERKUT
- Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
- Konular: Endüstri ve Endüstri Mühendisliği, Industrial and Industrial Engineering
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 1994
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Sayfa Sayısı: 102
Özet
ÖZET Organizasyon insanların hedeflerine ulaşmak için birlikte çalıştıkları ve karşılıklı etkileşimde bulundukları, yapılanmış bir proses olarak tanımlanabilir. Her ne kadar organizasyonun varoluş nedeni ve temel elemanı insan olsa da organizasyon çevreyle de bir bütündür ve etkinliğinde çevresel faktörlerin de önemli rolü vardır. Çevre organizasyonun özellik ve başarısını belirleyen kaynak, fırsat ve sınırları oluşturur. Ayrıca organizasyon, çevre tarafından istenen nitelikte hizmet sunduğu sürece varlığını devam ettirebilir. Bu nedenle, faaliyetleri çevre tarafından kabul görmelidir. Bir organizasyonun temel amaçlarından biri organizasyonel etkinliğin sürekli olarak arttırılmasını sağlamaktır. Organizasyonel etkinlik şirketin yalnızca parasal kazancı ile değil, aynı zamanda çalışanlarına ve çevreye sağladığı fayda ile de ölçülür. Fakat, ölçüt için kullanılan kriter ne olursa olsun organizasyonun etkinliğini arttıracak faktör uygun organizasyonel yapının kurulmasıdır. Bu durumda, organizasyonun değerlendirmesi için sadece kar, ciro, vb. değerler değil yapısının da gözönüne alınması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada organizasyonlar merkezileşme, fonksiyonel uzmanlaşma, formalizasyon, teknoloji, fonksiyonelleşme, büyüklük, standartlaşma, karmaşıklık ve kurmay yoğunluğu kriterleri cinsinden değerlendirerek karşılaştınlmışlardır. Merkezileşme firma içinde kararların alınmasında üst yönetimin ne derecede etkin olduğunun ölçüsüdür ve merkezileşme endeksi ve hiyerarşik seviye sayısı olmak üzere iki kriter ile değerlendirilmiştir. Fonksiyonel uzmanlaşma en az bir kişi tarafından yerine getirilen tanımlanmış temel fonksiyonların ölçümüdür. Formalizasyon işletmedeki yazılı kurallar ile ilgili bir ölçüttür. Teknoloji kütle üretim derecesi ile ölçülmüştür ve firmanın üretim için kullandığı teknoloji ile ilgili bir değerlendirme kriteridir. Fonksiyonelleşme için fonksiyonel dağılım ve hiyerarşik kontrol kriterleri gözönüne alınmaktadır. Fonksiyonel dağılım çalışanların işletmede bulunan fonksiyonlar arasında nasıl dağıldıklarını gösterir. Hiyerarşik kontrol ise hiyerarşinin çeşitli seviyelerindeki otorite ve sorumluluğun ölçüsüdür. Büyüklüğün değerlendirilmesinde ise çalışan sayısı, yıllık sermaye devri, net varlıklar ve üretim hacmi kullanılmıştır. Sözü edilen kriterlerin değerlendirilmesi için herbir kriter ile ilgili hazırlanmış sorulardan oluşan bir bilgi toplama formu, uygulama için seçilen ve elektronik ve telekomünikasyon sektöründe faaliyet gösteren beş adet firmaya uygulanmıştır. Verilen cevaplar sonucu ortaya çıkan puanların ilgili formüller yardımıyla hesaplanması sonucu bulunan değerler firmaların karşılaştırılmasında kriter olarak kullanılmıştır.
Özet (Çeviri)
SUMMARY When persons interact for individual and joint objectives, an organization exists. It can be structured in terms of roles, relationships, activities and objectives. Each member of the organization has two concepts: a concept of personal objectives, and a concept of organization's objectives. For personal and organizational effectiveness, both concepts must be integrated. In all its operations, an organization is affected by its environment. In turn, the organization affects its environment by its outputs. The elements of the environment include persons, physical resources and climate, economic and market conditions, and attitude and laws. Thus, the environment provides opportunities and limitations for an organization. The effective organization tries to be as compatible as possible with its environment. Thinking of the importance of adapting to shifting environmental conditions, it should be emphasized that one of the top management's main tasks involves strategic planning, matching organizational competencies with the opportunities and risks created by environmental change. An organization's strategy is the match between an organization's resources and skills and the environmental opportunities and risks it faces. In other words, it reflects how the organization plans to adapt to the threats and opportunities in its environment and maintain its effectiveness. Strategy may also affect a firm's strategy indirectly, through its effects on structure. Historian Alfred Chandler was the first to popularize the idea that organization's structure depends partly on its structure. He found that effective companies that had followed strategies of diversification had almost invariably organized around self-contained divisions, as a result of a need to reduce the diversity and quantity of information which the chief executive had to deal with. The studies executed by Burns and Stalker help to illustrate the specific links between environment and organization. They found that efficiency-oriented, mechanistic systems characterized by specialized jobs and centralization were most appropriate for unchanging conditions whereas organic systems, which has jobs are not clearly defined, instead continually adjusted according to the situations, were best for unstable conditions. The Lawrence and Lorsch studies are also important as they show that in large, multidepartment organizations, each department must often contend with its own environment and thus have its own unique structure. In addition to the type of environment in which the organization has to compete, researchers like Woodward suggest that the organization's technology that it used to produce its goods or services also affects its organization structure. According to the results of her study Woodward concluded that there was a clear line-staff distinction in mass production firms. The chief executives' span of control also varied by technology, with managers in process-manufacturing facilities having widest spans. Departmentalization was functional in mass-production firms, but divisional in XIunit and process firms. Firms with unit and process technologies made greater use of verbal communications, whereas mass production firms tended to rely more on formal communications. Every company has to carry out certain activities in order to accomplish to its goals. Departmentation is the process through which these activities are grouped logically and assigned to managers. Many ways of departmentation are available, but these can be grouped as functional and divisional departmentation. With functional departmentation, departments are built around basic processes like sales or manufacturing. This is a simple and efficient method of organizing, one that minimizes the duplication of effort. Disadvantages of this method include a reduction in responsiveness when the organization gets too large and the person responsible for coordinating the departments becomes overloaded. With divisional departmentation, departments are built around“purposes”like particular products, customers, marketing channels, or territories. These organizations can be more sensitive and responsive to the needs of their product or product lines and performances can be more easily judged. On the other hand, divisionalization often results in duplication of effort and could lead to a loss of top-management control. In addition to these groups there is another common way of deparmentation: Matrix departmentation. In matrix departmentation, a manager is put in charge of each project and is given authority and responsibility for completing the project. He or she is assigned a number of personnel from the various functional departments. This is a temporary kind of departmentation. On the completion of the project, the personnel return to their functional departments for reassignment. Matrix departmentation has some important advantages. It ensures a self- contained department that can devote its continuous and undivided attention to the needs of its project. Management avoids having to set up duplicate functional departments for each of several projects. However, matrix organizations also causes a number of problems, like power struggles and conflict between managers, time consuming, excessive overhead, collapse during economic crunch. In practice, most organizations use several forms of departmentation; in other words, they are hybrid. A main advantage of mixing forms of departmentation is that it can help to reduce the duplication. Organizing departments and jobs would be impossible without delegation, which we can define as the pushing down of the authority from superior to subordinate. This is because the assignment of responsibility for some department or job usually goes hand in hand with the delegation of adequate authority to get the job done. However, although the authority can be delegated, responsibility cannot. You can assign responsibility to a subordinate, however, you are still ultimately responsible for ensuring that the job gets done properly. Since you retain the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the job, delegation of the authority always entails the creation of accountability. Thus, your subordinates automatically become accountable to you for the performance of the tasks assigned to them. Decentralization means delegating authority to subordinates for most decisions while maintaining control over essential company wide matters. In effective organizations, decentralization usually increases as the demands on the president increase. For example the determinants of degree of decentralization include uncertainty and rate of change, differentiation and diversity of customers, organization size, dependence on a stable outside factor, and a production technology. Generally high uncertainty, much diversity, large size, little dependence, and unit or continuos technologies are associated with more decentralization. One can view these xusituational factors in terms of the problem solving, decision making and overall information processing that they require management to engage in. For example, a more changing or diverse environment, or a relatively large organization would necessarily give rise to need of upper-level managers to handle greater quantities of problems. Since there is a limit how much information a person can effectively handle, the manager must transfer some of the problem solving and decision making to subordinates, by delegating more decision making to them or by setting up self-contained decentralized divisions. The number of hierarchical levels and span of control are two other dimensions of organization structure. There is a close relation between the number of people reporting to a manager and the number of management levels in an organization. For example, if an organization with 64 workers to be supervised contains a span of control of 8, there will be 8 supervisors directing the workers and one manager directing the supervisor (flat organization). On the other hand, if the span of control were 4, the same number of workers would require 16 supervisors who would in turn be directed by 4 managers. These 4 managers in turn would be directed by one manager (a tall organization). Classical theorists Graicunas and Fayol felt that tall organizational structures improved performance by requiring small spans and close supervision. Formalization denotes the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions and communications are written. The ways a manager can formalize behavior in organizations are formalization by job, by work flow, by rules and by structure. Behavior is formalized for many reasons, including to reduce variability, coordinate effort and ensure fair treatment. However, formalization can also have dysfunctional effects. For example, it reduces employee morale. Several factors affect the degree of formalization in an organization. These include the size of the organization, work flow integration, and the variability and predictability of the task. Organizational communication can take many forms such as policies, procedures, rules, and oral communications. The organization structure restricts most communication to certain formally sanctioned routes and serves to formalize communication (and therefore behavior) in the organization. In some organizations, the structure is such that communications are highly formalized and mechanistic, in others, they are less. Research findings indicate that complex, innovative tasks generally demand less formal communications networks, whereas predictable, routine tasks are associated with highly formalized and structured communication flows. Departmentation, coordination, decentralization, formalization and contextual elements of structure, like environment, technology and size can be considered as basic elements of organization design. Designing an organization structure is the task of pulling these elements together. According to many researchers organization design may be facilitated by identifying several standard organization structures and then deciding which is more appropriate. Henry Mintzberg developed such an approach to organization design. He builds his approach around five basic elements, which are represented in the following figure: strategic apex, middle line, operating core, technostructure and support staff. At the base of the organization are its operators, the people who actually perform the basic work of the production. They constitute the operating core. As the organization grows, the need for supervision increases and even in a small firm a manager who sits at the strategic apex becomes necessary. In a corporation, the strategic apex includes the board of directors, president, president's staff and executive committee. Most xmorganizations also create a middle line, a hierarchy of managers between the operating core and strategic apex. Strategic Apex Middle Line Operating Core As the organization grows, it may turn increasingly to standardization, for example, by standardizing work processes, products and employee skills. The responsibility for standardization falls on a group of analysts which is defined as technostructure by Mintzberg. Finally, Mintzberg says that, an organization may add staff units to service itself by providing special services like cafeteria, public relations or legal counsel. Mintzberg calls these units the support staff. Mintzberg contends that most organization structures can be classified as belonging to one of five ideal structural configurations, which he calls simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisionalized form and adhocracy. The simple structure avoids using all the formal devices of structure like division of work and decentralization. It is best for simple, dynamic environments. The machine bureaucracy is the typical mechanistic organization and is ideal for simple unchanging tasks. The professional bureaucracy (such as an accounting firm) consists of highly trained professionals who are given a great deal of discretion, so that its operating core is the key component. This type of structure is exists wherever the operating core of an organization is dominated by professionals who use procedures that are difficult to learn yet are well defined. The divisionalized form is unique, in that each division is typically has its own structure; the main contingency factor driving such organizations is market diversity. Finally, in the adhocracy, there is a deliberate avoidance of specifying individual tasks and the forbidding of any dependence on the management hierarchy. Typically, adhocracies use informal communication devices and techniques like project teams and innovation-oriented values to maintain tight control while ensuring looseness for innovation. The relationships, activities, objectives, and communication flow in an organization are structured by managerial function of organizing. Organizing gives meaning and identity to various parts of the organization. Often organization charts are useful in the organizing process. However, an organization chart is not the organization; the chart is merely a static picture of the organization. The organization is best viewed as the pattern of interactions and relationships among its members. Organizing can make these interactions and relationships more effective by reducing conflicts, defining roles, and producing a blueprint of these relationships. xivOrganizing divides the total task of the organization in two ways: through vertical specialization in the creation of a hierarchy, and through horizontal specialization in the establishment of various departments. The organization hierarchy sets up a structure of authority, power, accountability and information flow. Coordinating these specializing activities is commonly done in a number of ways. The hierarchy, through its authority-accountability mechanisms, is perhaps the most common way of ensuring coordination. Authority is one of the“glues”that holds an organization together. From an organizational point of view authority is the right to do something to accomplish organizational goals. Power and authority are often confused, but we can clearly differentiate the two. Authority is the right to do something, on the other hand, power is the ability to do something. Authority, power, responsibility and accountability at every point (for every position and person) in the organization must be balanced. Suppose authority (or power) exceeds accountability (or responsibility). The extra authority may be used arbitrarily, or without adequate consideration of effect on others. It is also untenable to think of responsibility and accountability exceeding authority and power. If such case occurs we would be holding persons accountable for things that they cannot change or control. In this study five companies functioning in telecommunication and electronic sector are measured and evaluated in terms of centralization, number of hierarchic levels, specialization, formalization, technology, functionalism, size, standardization, complexity and amount of staff. xv
Benzer Tezler
- Bilişim sektöründe organizasyonel yapının performans üzerindeki etkileri
The effect of organizational structure on performance in information technology sector
GÖKMEN ÇALIŞAN
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2010
Endüstri ve Endüstri Mühendisliğiİstanbul Teknik ÜniversitesiEndüstri Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. SEÇKİN POLAT
- Organizational effectiveness in Turkish construction companies: An artificial neural network based prediction model
Türk inşaat şirketlerinde organizasyonel etkinlik: Yapay sinir ağlarına dayalı bir tahmin modeli
SEMİHA KIZILTAŞ
Yüksek Lisans
İngilizce
2002
İnşaat MühendisliğiOrta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesiİnşaat Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı
DOÇ. DR. MUSTAFA TALAT BİRGÖNÜL
YRD. DOÇ. DR. İREM DİKMEN
- The dimensions of the organization structure effect in improve marketing performance
Pazarlama performansını arttırmada organizasyon yapısı etkisinin boyutları
DANA MUHAMAD ALI ABDULA
Yüksek Lisans
İngilizce
2017
İşletmeBingöl Üniversitesiİşletme Ana Bilim Dalı
YRD. DOÇ. DR. MEHMET GÜVEN
- Geleneksel ekonomilerden internet ekonomisine geçiş
From traditional economies to internet economy
MURAT ÖZTURAN
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2011
Ekonomiİstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesiİşletme Ana Bilim Dalı
DOÇ. DR. MEHMET MELEMEN
- E-demokrasi uygulaması olarak katılımcı bütçeleme: 'Komşu Meclisi' modeli
Participatory budgeting as an e-democracy practice: The 'Neighborhood Council' model
ATAHAN TAŞKIN
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2023
Kamu YönetimiAkdeniz ÜniversitesiSiyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı
DR. ÖĞR. ÜYESİ AHMET ALPTEKİN DURU