Paydaşların Önceliği Teorisinin Aile İşletmelerinin Performansına Etkisi

Year 2018, , 1491 - 1506, 27.09.2018

Mehmet Akif Çini , Hasan Kürşat Güleş , Mustafa Atilla Arıcıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.429086

Abstract

Yirminci
yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren gelişmeye başlayan aile işletmeleri, tüm
şirketlerinin Dünya’da ortalama % 50’sini, Türkiye’de ise ortalama 95’ini
oluşturmaktadır. Bu sebeple, aile işletmelerinin iyi bir ekonomik performans
sergilemesi ve sürdürülebilirliğinin sağlanması tüm dünya ekonomileri için
kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Ancak, bu işletmelerin kurucusundan itibaren
gelecek nesillere devredilme oranları gittikçe düşmektedir. Literatür
incelendiğinde, aile işletmelerinin diğer işletmelere göre daha fazla sistem
sahip olduğu gibi konuyla ilgili birçok neden olduğu görülmektedir. Çalışmada,
aile işletmeleri sistemlerinin (aile, işletme ve yönetim), Paydaşların Önceliği
Modeli (güç, meşruiyet ve öncelik) aracılığıyla işletmenin performansını nasıl
etkilediği ve hangi sistemin bu performansı eniyileyeceği araştırılmıştır. Her
bir sistemin etkisinin, önceliğinin ve çıkarlarının işletmenin ekonomik
performansını nasıl etkilediğinin ayrı ayrı araştırılması, literatürdeki bu
boşluğu dolduracaktır. Araştırma, Türkiye’de bulunan aile işletmelerinin %71’ini
kapsayan 12 ilde (İstanbul, Ankara, Bursa, İzmir, Konya, Gaziantep, Denizli,
Kocaeli, Adana, Tekirdağ, Kayseri ve Mersin), çalıştırdığı işçi sayısı
açısından büyük ölçekli 308 işletme üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiş ve elde edilen
veriler, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli aracılığıyla analiz
edilmiştir.

Keywords

aile işletmeleri, paydaş teorisi, işletme performansı

Effect of the Stakeholder Salience Theory on Family Businesses Performance

Abstract

Having started to develop since the second half of
twentieth century, Family businesses make up approximately %50 in the world,
%90 in Turkey of all businesses. For that reason, presenting a good economic
performance and ensuring sustainability of Family businesses plays a critical
role for the whole world economies. Yet, the rate of taking-over the business
from the founder of these businesses to the next generation gradually
decreases. When the literature review, a lot of important reasons appears to be
about this situation, like having more system compared to normal businesses. In
the study, how the systems of Family businesses (family, business and
management) effects the performance of the business through Stakeholders Salience
Model (power, legitimacy and urgency) and which system will improve this
performance best, is researched. Studying how the impact, salience and stakes
of each system will affect economic performance of the business separately
would fill that gap in the literature. In this research, in 12 provinces which
consist of %71 of Family businesses in Turkey (İstanbul, Ankara, Bursa, İzmir,
Konya, Gaziantep, Denizli, Kocaeli, Adana, Tekirdağ, Kayseri and Mersin), data
from 308 businesses that are large-sized in terms of the number of workers they
employ, are analyzed with Structural Equation Model. 

Keywords

family business, stakeholder theory, business performance

References

• Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. & Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999). Who matters to CEOS? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy Of Management Journal, 42, 5, 507-525.
• Ayrancı, E. (2014). A study on the influence of family on family business and its relationship to satisfaction with financial performance. Ekonomie A Management, 2, 87-105.
• Basco, R. (2014). Exploring the influence of the family upon firm performance: does strategic behavior matter?. International Small Business Journal, December 32, 967-995.
• Birdthistle, N. & Fleming, P. (2007). Under the microscope: a profile of the family business in Ireland. Irish Journal Of Management, 28:2, 135-165.
• Chevalier, J. (2001). Stakeholder analysis and natural resource management. e.t.01.06.2014http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/politicaleconomy/November3Seminar/Stakehlder%20Readings/SA-Chevalier.pdfChua, J.H.,
• Chrisman, J.J. & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 4, 19-37.
• Cisneros, L., Genin, E. & Peerally, J. (2012). Family, business and power: illustrating three extreme cases” Journal of Family Business Management, 2, 1, 40-56.
• Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy Of Management Review, 20, 1, 92-117.
• Cragg, W. & Greenbaum, A. (2002). Reasoning about responsibilities: mining company managers on what stakeholders are owned. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 319-335.
• Davis, J.A. & Tagiuri, R. (1989). The influence of life-stage on father-son work relationships in family companies. Family Business Review, 2(1), 47-74.
• Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy Of Management Review, 20, 1, 65-91.
• Easley, C. & Lenox, M.J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781.
• Elias, A.A., Cavana, R.Y. (2000). Stakeholder analysis for systems thinking and modeling. 35th Annual Conference Of The Operational Research Society Of New Zealand, 1-18.
• Erdirençelebi, M. (2013). Aile işletmelerinde kurumsallaşmanın gerçekleşmesi ile sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasında kuşaklar arası farklılıklar. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
• Freeman, E.R& Mcvea, J.F. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-2, 1-33.
• Heugens, P.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. & Van Riel, C.B.M. (2002). Stakeholder integration. Business&Society, 41, 1, 36-60.
• Hooper, D., Couglan, J. & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal Of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Jones, T., Felps, W. & Bigley, G.A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Academy Of Management Review, 32, 1, 137-155.
• Karpuzoğlu, E. (2000), Büyüyen ve gelişen aile işletmelerinde kurumsallaşma, Hayat Yayınları, İstanbul. Kurt, B. (2009). Örgüt kültürünün aile şirketlerinin kurumsallaşmasında rolü. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,İzmir.
• Lansberg, I. & Astrachan, J.H. (1994). Influence of family relationships on succession planning and training: the importance of mediating factors. Family Business Review, 2, 345-362.
• Lee, Y.G. & Marshall, M.I. (2013). Goal orientation and performance of family business. J Fam Econ Iss, 34, 265-274.
• Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H.& Raposo M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49, 2, 226-252.
• Mcgivern, C. (1989). The dynamics of management succession: a model of chief executive succession in the small family firm. Family Business Review, 2(4), 401-411.
• Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R.& Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy Of Management Review, 22, 4, 853-886.
• Mustakallio, M.A. (2002). Contractual and relational governance in family firms effects on strategic decision making quality and firm performance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Helsinki University Of Technology Institute Of Strategy and International Business, Finland.
• Neville B. A., Bell S. J. & Mengüç, B. (2005). Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the social performance- financial performance relationship. European Journal Of Marketing, 39 (9/10), 1184-1198.
• Polonsky, M.J. (1996). Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: potential strategic marketing tools. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1, 3,.209-229.
• Post, J.E., Preston, L.E. & Sachs S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45, 1, 6-28.
• Preston, L.E. & Sapienza, H.J. (1990). Stakeholder management and corporate performance. The Journal Of Behavioral Economics, 19, 4,.361-375.
• Ring, J.K. (2011). Stakeholder salience in family firm. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Mississippi State University, ABD.
• Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy Of Management Review, 22, 4, 887-910.
• Ryan, L.V.& Schneider, M. (2003). Instutional investor power and heterogeneity: implications for agency and stakeholder theories. Business&Society, 42, 4, 398-429.
• Schwartz, M.A. & Barnes, L.B. (1991). Outside boards and family businesses: another look. Family Business Review, 4(3), 269-285.
• Scott, S.G. & Lane, V.R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy Of Management Review, January 1, 43-62.
• Sindhuja, P.N. (2009). Performance and value creation: family managed business versus non-family managed business. IUP Journal Of Business Strategy, 6.3/4, 66-80.
• Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. & Martinuzz, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholder and sustainable development ı: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations. Journal Of Business Ethics, 61, 263-281.
• Tower, B.C., Gudmunson, D., Schierstedt, S. & Hartman E.A. (2007). Do family meetings really matter? Their relationship to planning and performance outcomes in small family business. Journal Of Small Business Strategy, Spring/Summer 18:1, 85-93.
• Zachary, R.K. (2011). The importance of family system in family business. Journal Of Family Business Management, 1, 1, 26-36.