Hasan Çebi BAL, M. Mithat ÜNER, Mehmet Arslan TEKİNSOY, Aziz BATTAL, Ece DOĞUÇ, Pınar UÇAKKUŞ, Cüneyt GENÇ

Türkiye Organizasyonel Girişimcilik Ölçeği Geliştirilmesi: İmalat ve Toptan/Perakende Ticaret Sektöründe Uygulama

Amaç – Bu çalışmanın amacı öncelikle firmaların girişimcilik düzeylerini ölçen bir Girişimcilik ölçeği geliştirmek daha sonra ölçek kullanılarak Girişimcilik Endeksi elde etmek ve son aşamada ise ölçek ve endeks verilerinden yararlanılarak entegre bir yazılım aracılığıyla kullanıcı dostu ve erişilebilir bir raporlama sistemi ile girişimcilik puanı elde edilmesidir. Yöntem – Araştırmada öncelikle detaylı literatür taraması ve yapısal görüşmeler ile ölçeğin ana hatları oluşturulmuştur. Örneklemden seçilen 50 firma ile pilot çalışma yapılarak ölçeğin geçerliliği, güvenilirliği, KFA ve DFA analizleri yapılmış son hali verilmiştir. Organizasyonel girişimcilik endeksi oluşturmaya yönelik yapılan anketler herhangi bir sektör ayrımı yapılmaksızın genel olarak ISO, İTO da kayıtlı NACE 2’li kodlu 1057 firmaya uygulanmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen veriler karşılaştırılabilir olması ve endeks oluşturulabilmesi için T skorlarına dönüştürülmüştür. Ölçeğin yapısal geçerliliği AMOS paket programında Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) modeliyle yapılmıştır. Güvenirlik analizi, açıklayıcı istatistikler ve temel analizler (student-t ve ANOVA testleri) SPSS paket programında yapılmıştır. Ayrıca Geliştirilen GENDEKS uygulaması ile firma karnesi elde edilmiştir. Bulgular – Sonuçlar örgütsel girişimcilik konusunda liderlerin girişimcilikte önemli bir etken olduklarını göstermektedir. Küçük işletmelerin girişimcilik faaliyetlerin büyük işletmelere oranları daha fazla olduğu söylenebilir. Bu durum küçük işletmelerin büyüme ve gelişme konusunda daha dinamik bir yapı sahip oldukları şeklinde değerlendirilebilir. Firmaların son üç yılda girişimcilik faaliyetleri sonucunda hem firma adına, hem müşteriler adına hem de çalışanlar adına oldukça olumlu çıktılar elde edildiği görülmektedir. Bütün maddelerin ve boyutların ortalamalarının yüksek olması firmaların girişimcilik konusuna önem verdiklerini göstermektedir. Firma faaliyetleri ve girişimcilik ölçeği puanlarını sektör bakımından genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde toptan ve perakende sektörünün puanlarının daha yüksek olduğu diğer bir ifadeyle hem girişimcilik faaliyet Tartışma – GENDEKS yazılımının kullanımı firmalara girişimcilik performanslarını karşılaştırma imkanları vermektedir. Firmalar böylece hem girişimlerinin önündeki engellerin neler olduklarını tespit edebilecek hem de engelleri ortadan kaldırabilmek için yapılması gerekenleri görebileceklerdir. Girişimcilik ve ekonomik kalkınma arasındaki ilişki doğru orantılıdır. Firmaların büyümesinde karlılığın ve piyasadaki rekabetçi baskılara dayanma kabiliyetinin en önemli hususunu; yeni ürünler, süreçler, hizmetler, teknolojiler sunarak büyümeyi ve yenilenmeyi yönlendiren girişimcilerin oluşturduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Development of Organizational Entrepreneurship Scale in Turkey: Application in Manufacturing and Wholesale/Retail Trade Sector

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to develop an Entrepreneurship scale, which measures the entrepreneurship levels of firms, and then to obtain an Entrepreneurship Index by using the scale. At the last stage, it is transformed into a user-friendly and accessible reporting system through an integrated software by making use of scale and index data. Design/methodology/approach – In the research, first of all the detailed literature review and structured interviews were formed outline of scale. The validity, reliability, CFA and DFA analyzes of the scale were made by making a pilot study with 50 companies selected from the sample. The surveys conducted to create an organizational entrepreneurship index were applied to 1057 companies with NACE 2 codes registered in ISO, ITO, without any sector distinction. The data obtained as a result of the study were converted into T scores in order to be comparable and to form an index The structural validity of the scale was based on the confirmatory factor analysis (DFA) model in the Amos package program. Reliability analysis, explanatory statistics and basic analyses (student-t and Anova tests) were conducted in the SPSS program. In addition, a firm report card was obtained with the developed GENDEKS application. Findings – The research revealed that leaders are an important factor in entrepreneurship when it comes to organizational entrepreneurship. Small businesses can be said to have greater rates of entrepreneurial activities than large businesses. This can be seen as a more dynamic structure of small businesses in terms of growth and development. As a result of the entrepreneurial activities of the companies in the last three years, it is seen that very positive outcomes have been achieved both on behalf of the company, on behalf of the customers and on behalf of the employees. The high average of all substances and sizes shows that firms give importance to entrepreneurship. In other words, it can be said that both the entrepreneurial activities and the entrepreneurial perception are ahead of the manufacturing industry sector when the company activities and entrepreneurship scale scores are evaluated in terms of the sector in general. Discussion – The use of GENDEKS software allows companies to compare their entrepreneurial performance. Companies will thus be able to see what obstacles are in front of their initiatives and what needs to be done in order to eliminate them. The relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development is directly proportional. It has been determined that the most important issue of profitability and ability to withstand competitive pressures in the market is the entrepreneurs who drive growth and renewal by offering new products, processes, services and technologies.

PDF

___

Acemoglu, D. ve Johnson, S. (2005), Unbundling Institutions. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5), 947–997.
Acemoglu, D., Johnsoni S. ve Robinsoni J. (2001), The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401.
Acs, Z. J., and Szerb, L. (2009). The global entrepreneurship index (GEINDEX) (Vol. 24). Now Publishers Inc.
Ács, Zoltán J., László Szerb ve Ainsley Lloyd (2018), Global Entrepreneurship Index, The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, Washington, D.C., USA
Aidis, R., Estrin, S. ve Mickiewicz, T. (2010), Institutions, Finance and the Level of Development: the Impact on Entrepreneurship in Transition, Review of Economics and Institutions, 1(1), 1–26.
Anokhin, S. ve Schulze, W. S. (2009), Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5), 465–476.
Antoncic B and Hisrich RD (2004), Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation, Journal of Management Development, 23(6): 518-50.
Antoncic, B. (2007), Intrapreneurship: A Comparative Structural Equation Modeling Study, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107 (3): 309-325.
Baumol, W. (1990), Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy 98, 893-921.
Bojica, AM & Del Mar Fuentes Fuentes, M. (2012), Knowledge acquisition and corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal of World Business, 47(3): 397-408.
Bosma, N., Stam, E. ve Wennekers, S. (2012): Entrepreneurial Employee Activity: A Large Scale International Study. Tjalling Koopmans Institute Working Paper 12–12. Utrecht University School of Economics, Utrecht
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., Ruiz-Navarro, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2012). The intrapreneur and innovation in creative firms. International Small Business Journal, 30(5), 513-535.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D. (1989), Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
Covin, J. G. ve Slevin, D. P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Fall: 7-25.
Dahl M. S. ve Sorenson, O. (2009), The embedded entrepreneur. European Management Review, 6(3), 172–181.
Davidsson P. ve Henrekson, M. (2002), Determinants of the prevalence of start-ups and high-growth firms. Small Business Economics, 19(2), 81–104
De Jong, J. P. J., Parker, S. K., Wennekers, S., and Wu, C. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship at the individual level: measurement and determinants. EIM research reports. Zoetermeer: EIM, 11, 1-27
Delmar, F. ve Davidsson, P. (2000), Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(1), 1–23
Fotopoulos, G. ve Spence, N. (1999), Spatial Variations in Net Entry Rates of Establishments in Greek Manufacturing Industries: An Application of the Shift-Share ANOVA Model, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 31(10), 1731–1755.
Gustafsson, R. ve Autio, E. (2011), A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 40(6), 819-831.
Hornsby, JS, Kuratko, DF, Holt, DT & Wales, WJ. (2013), Assessing the measurement of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5): 937- 955.
Hung, SC. Ve Whittington, R. (2011), Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4), 526–538.
Ireland, RD, Hitt, MA, Camp, M & Sexton, L. (2001), Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(1): 49–63.
Kanter, R. M. (1984), The Change Masters. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kerr W. ve Nanda, R. (2009), Financing constraints and entrepreneurship. NBER Working Paper 15498. Cambridge, Mass.
Lunati, Mariarosa, (2012), “DevelopingEntrepreneurshipIndicators” Entrepreneurshipdeterminants: cultureandcapabilities, 12. Edition, Publications Office of theEuropeanUnion, Luxembourg
Lunati, M., Schlochtern, Jeroen M. zu ve S. Gueram (2020) The OECD-EurostatEntrepreneurshipIndicatorsProgramme, https://www.oecd.org/sdd/46413155.pdf, (erişim tarihi:04.01.2020)
Meyer, K. E. ve Peng, M. W. (2005): Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal Of İnternational Business Studies, 36(6), 600–621.
Napier, N. K., & Nilsson, M. (2006). The development of creative capabilities in and out of creative organizations: Three case studies. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(3), 268-278.
oecd.org, (2020), http://www.oecd.org/sdd/businessstats/theentrepreneurshipindicatorsprogrammeeipbackgroundinformation.htm (erişim tarihi: 03.01.20)
oecd-ilibrary.org (2020) https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/entrepreneur_aag-2017- en.pdf?expires=1578305255&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E8705417192EE9DB423E5F39B59A60 30
Parker, S. C. (2004), The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Tom J. ve Waterman, Robert H. (1982), In Search of Excellence - Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies, Harper Collins Publishers, London.
Pinchot, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring: why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur, New York: Harper and Row.
Rocha, H. O. ve Sternberg, R. (2005), Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 267-292.
Rodrik, D., Subramanian. A. ve Trebbi, F. (2004), Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of' Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Sinha, N., and Srivastava, K. B. (2013). Association of personality, work values and socio-cultural factors with intrapreneurial orientation. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 97-113.
Srivastana, N. ve Agrawal, A. (2010), Factors Supporting Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study, VISION-The Journal Of Business Perspective, 14 (3), July-September, 164-171
Sternberg, R. (2004), Regional Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. 5(5) Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5, 211–340.
Szerb, L., Z. J. Acs, E. Autıo, R. Ortega-Argılés, É. Komlósı (2013), REDI: The Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index – Measuring regional entrepreneurship, Final report, European Comission
Szerb,L. Vörös, Z., Komlósi, É., Acs, Zoltan J., Páger, B., Rappai, G.(2017) TheRegionalEntrepreneurshipand Development Index: Structure, Data, MethodologyandPolicy Applications,http://www.projectfires.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/d4.4-the-regional-entrepreneurship-and-development-index_-structure-data-methodology-and-policyapplications.pdf, (erişim tarihi:09.01.2020)
thegedi.org,(2020), https://thegedi.org/theinstitute/ (erişim tarihi: 05.01.2020)
thegedi.org , (2020) https://thegedi.org/the-redi-measuring-regional-entrepreneurship-in-europe/, (erişim tarihi:05.01.2020)
Ulusoy, G., Kılıç, K. ve Günday, G. (2015), A determinants of innovativeness model for manufacturing firms. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 6 (2), 125-158
Urbano, D and Turro, A. (2013), Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: an in(ex)ternal approach. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 9(2013): 379-396.
Winton, A. ve Yerramilli, V. (2008), Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 88, 51–79.
Zahra, SA. (2005), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.