ÖRGÜTLERDE DENETİMLİ İŞBİRLİĞİ: BİLGİ YÖNETİMİ, PERFORMANS VE GÜVENİN ROLÜ

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 156 - 181, 20.12.2022

Nurcan Kemikkıran , Meral Kızrak

https://doi.org/10.54186/arhuss.1174007

Öz

Vekâlet kuramı, asilin en az maliyetle azami kâr elde etmeye çalıştığını ve vekilin ise sadece denetim mekanizmaları ile asilin çıkarına hareket ettiğini öne sürerken, temsil kuramı vekilin aslında asilin menfaatleri doğrultusunda hareket etmeye istekli olduğunu ve bu nedenle işbirliği mekanizmalarının geliştirilmesi savunur. Örgütsel denetimin eksikliği, örgütsel hedeflerden sapmaya yol açarken, çok fazla kontrol de çalışanların özerkliğine, yaratıcılığına ve yenilikçiliğine zarar verebilir. Öte yandan, örgüt-içi işbirliği gereğinden fazla vurgulandığında, iş süreçlerinde ilişkisel risk ortaya çıkabilir. Bu nedenle, denetim ve işbirliğinin bir arada bulunması, örgütler için bir ikilem yaratır. Bu çalışmada bilgi yönetimi, performans yönetimi ve güven gibi değişkenlerin, örgütlerde denetimli işbirliğine nasıl katkıda bulunabileceği tartışılmış ve bu doğrultuda kuramsal önermeler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Vekalet kuramı, Temsil kuramı, Örgütsel denetim, İşbirliği, Bilgi yönetimi

CONTROLLED COLLABORATION IN ORGANIZATIONS: THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE AND TRUST

Öz

While the agency theory posits that the principal tries to gain maximum profits with the least costs and the agent acts in the interest of the principal only with control mechanisms, the stewardship theory argues that the agent is motivated to act in the interests of the principal therefore coordination mechanisms should be developed. While the absence of organizational control may lead to diversion from organizational goals, too much control may harm employees' autonomy, creativity, and innovation. On the other hand, when organizations over emphasize collaboration, a relational risk may occur in work processes. So the coexistence of control and collaboration creates a dilemma for organizations. In this study we argue how knowledge management, performance management and trust may contribute to the unity of control and collaboration in organizations and accordingly develop theoretical propositions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agency theory, Stewardship theory, Organizational control, Collaboration, Knowledge management

Kaynakça

• Bendor, J., Glazer, A. & Hammond, T. (2001). Theories of delegation. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1): 235-269.
• Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M. & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 459-472.
• Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6): 1021-1046.
• Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
• Bogenrieder, I. & Nooteboom, B. (2004). Learning groups: What types are there? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultancy firm. Organization Studies, 25(2): 287-313.
• Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B. & Long, C. P. (2004). Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15(4): 411-431.
• Coff, R. (2003). Bidding wars over R & D-intensive firms: Knowledge, opportunism and the market for corporate control. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1): 74-85.
• Cohen, M. D. & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organization routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4): 554-568.
• Colletti, A. L., Sedatole, K. L. & Towry, K. L. (2005). The effect of control systems on trust and cooperation in collaborative environments. The Accounting Review, 80(2): 477-500.
• Collins, C. J. & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 544-560.
• Conner, K. R. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7 (5): 477-501.
• Coombs, R., Knights, D. & Willmott, H. C. (1992). Culture, control and competition; towards a conceptual framework fort he study of information technology in organizations. Organization Studies, 13(1): 51-72.
• Das, T. K. & Teng, B. S. (1988). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 491-512.
• Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D. & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20-47.
• Dickinson, H. & Sullivan, H. (2014). Towards a general theory of collaborative performance: The importance of efficacy and agency. Public Administration, 92(1): 161-177.
• Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 369-381.
• Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P. & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 601-620.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2): 134-149.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
• Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C. & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4): 465-499.
• Fischer, P. & Huddart, S. (2008). Optimal contracting with endogenous social norms. American Economic Review, 98(4): 1459-1475.
• Gajda, R. & Koliba, C. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational collaboration: A school improvement perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1): 26-44.
• Giglioni, G. B. & Bedeian, A. G. (1974). A conceptus of management control theory: 1900-1972. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2): 292-305.
• Goold, M. & Quinn, J. J. (1990). The paradox of strategic controls. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1): 43-57.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
• Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109-122.
• Griesinger, D. W. (1990). The human side of economic organization. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 478-499.
• Harris, J. D., Johnson, S. G. & Souder, D. (2013). Model-theoretic knowledge accumulation: The case of agency theory and incentive alignment. Academy of Management Review, 38(3): 442-454.
• He, J. & Wang, H. C. (2009). Innovative knowledge assets and economic performance: The asymmetric roles of incentives and monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5): 919-938.
• Hendry, J. (2002). The principal’s other problems: Honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 98-113.
• Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 172-193.
• Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 379-403.
• Jacobides, M. G. & Croson, D. C. (2001). Information policy: Shaping the value of agency relationships. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 202-223.
• Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305-360.
• Kapoor, R. & Lim, K. (2007). The impact of acquisitions on the productivity of inventors at semiconductor firms: a synthesis of knowledge-based and incentive-based perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1133-1155.
• Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm. Combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383-397.
• Kulik, B. W. (2005). Agency theory, reasoning and culture at enron: In search of a solution. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4): 347-360.
• Lam, A. 1997. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18(6): 973-996.
• Lange, D. 2008. A multidimensional conceptualization of organizational corruption control. Academy of Management Review, 33(3): 710-729.
• Leifer, R. & Mills, P. K. (1996). An information processing approach for deciding upon control strategies and reducing control loss in emerging organizations. Journal of Management, 22(1): 113-137.
• Majone, G. (2001). Two logics of delegation. European Union Politics, 2(1): 103-122.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
• McCarthy, D. J. & Puffer, S. M. (2008). Interpreting the ethicality of corporate governance decisions in Russia: Utilizing integrative social contracts theory to evaluate the relevance of agency theory norms. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 11-31.
• McIver, D. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L. & Ramachandran, I. (2013). Understanding work and knowledge management from a knowledge in- practice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 597-620.
• Michaud, V. (2014). Mediating the paradoxes of organizational governance through numbers. Organization Studies, 35(1): 75-101.
• Mills, P. K. & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 143-153.
• Nag, R. & Gioia, D. (2012). From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations of firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2): 421-457.
• Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.
• Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1): 14-36.
• Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3): 40-54.
• Nooteboom, B. (1996). Trust, opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organization Studies, 17(6): 985-1010.
• Nooteboom, B. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65(1): 29-53.
• Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9): 833-848.
• Popova, V. & Sharpanskykh, A. (2010). Modeling organizational performance indicators. Information Systems, 35(4): 505-527.
• Puranam, P. & Vanneste, B. S. (2009). Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web. Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 11-31.
• Quinn, D. P. & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 22-42.
• Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 240-267.
• Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S. & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35(3): 719-804.
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 344-354.
• Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31: 263-284.
• Sharma, A. (1997). Professional as agent: Knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(13): 758-798.
• Sillince, J. A. A. (2005). A contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 608-621.
• Sitkin, S. B. & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(33): 367-392.
• Small, C. T. & Sage, A. P. 2(005-2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: A review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5(3): 153-169.
• Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J. & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2): 346-357.
• Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2): 292-327.
• Sundaramurthy, C. & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397-415.
• Şengün, A. E. & Wasti, S. N. (2009). Revisiting trust and control. International Small Business Journal, 27(1): 39-69.
• Turner, K. L. & Makhija, M. V. (2006). The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 197-217.
• Walsh, J. P. & Seward, J. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanism. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 421-458.
• Welter, F. (2012). All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. International Small Business Journal, 30(3): 193-212.
• Wilkins, A. L. & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 468-481.
• Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B. & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26(6): 813-840.
• Wright, P. & Mukherji, A. (1999). Inside the firm: Socioeconomic versus agency perspectives on firm competitiveness. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(3): 295-307.