Organizational Structure Scale – University Version

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 4, 775 - 803, 15.10.2018

Evrim Erol , Aydan Ordu

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.775

Öz

This study aims to conduct validity and reliability analysis of Organizational Structure Scale-University version (OSS-U) that enables us to determine organizational structures of universities. The scale was developed based on the Axiomatic Theory by Hage, literature review and expert opinions. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 655 faculty members working at state universities in Turkey. Psychometric features of the scale were tested with three different models. The content validity of the suggested models was tested with Lawshe Analysis; the construct validity with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) while the reliability was tested with Cronbach alpha which is a measure of internal consistency. As a result of the analyses conducted, all of these three models were determined to be valid and reliable with the relevant sample. It was also revealed that OSS-U can be used as model 1 in which nine dimensions (number of occupational specialties, professional training, professional activities, participation in decisions, hierarchy of authority, standardization, professional latitude, difference in rewards and difference in status) describe one single concept (University Structure), or model 2 in which four subscales (Complexity Scale, Centralization Scale, Formalization Scale and Stratification Scale) are independent pieces of an umbrella term (University Structure) or model 3, as a combination of these two models (model 1 + model 2), where combined subscales that have dimensions in itself describe a hypernym (University).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational structure, scale development, mechanical organization, organic organization

Kaynakça

• Alan, H. & Fidanboy, C. O. (2013). Kosul bagimlilik bakis acisiyla orgut yapisi ve inovasyon stratejisi iliskisi: Elektronik sektorunde bir inceleme [Relationship between organization structure and innovation strategy with contingency perspective: An investigation in the electronic sector]. 21st National Management and Organization Conference Proceedings. Kutahya: Nobel.
• Andersen, J. A. (2002). Organizational design: Two lessons to learn before reorganizing. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5(3-4), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1081/OTB-120014895
• Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2001). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Mangament. Simon and Schuster.
• Beckman, J. C. (1992) State-supported and state-aided residential schools for the deaf and residential schools for the deaf and blind in The United States: Relationship among their organizational strategy-type, structure, and effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9234754)
• Bishop, L. K. & George, J. R. (1973). Organizational structure: a factor analysis of structural characteristics of public elementary and secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 9 (3), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X7300900305
• Blau, P. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 201-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093199
• Blau, P. M. & Schoenherr, R. E. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books Century Crofts.
• Boyne, G. A., Brewer, G. A. & Walker, R. M. (2010). Public management and performance. USA: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. London: Routledge.
• Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1968). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi: Istatistik, arastirma deseni, SPSS uygulamalari ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Can, H. (1992). Organizasyon ve yönetim [Organization and management]. Ankara: Adim Press.
• Child, J. (1972a). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42851133
• Child. J. (1972b). Organizational structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 163-177. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393951
• Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T. & Rogers, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 773-802. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256568
• Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., Fielding, G. J. & Porter, L. W. (1980). Organization structure and performance: A critical review. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1980.4288881
• Daft, R. L. (1992). Organization theory and design. Saint Paul: West Publishing Company.
• Donaldson, L., Child, J. & Aldrich, H., (1975). Aston findings on centralization: Further discussion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(3), 453-460. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392003
• Erkus, A. (2012). Psikolojide olcme ve olcek gelistirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler [Measurement and scale development in psychology –I: Basic concepts and processes]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Ferrell, O. C., Ferrell, L. & Fraedrich, J. (2009). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
• Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.
• George, D. & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Boston: Pearson.
• Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H. (1997). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
• Goldfarb, L. M. (1995). The relationship among organizational structure, school climate, and teacher satisfaction in residantial schools for students who are deaf or deaf-blind. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9536097)
• Graubner, M. (2006). Task, firm size, and organizational structure in management consulting: An empirical analysis from a contingency perspective. Germany: Der Deutsche Universitats-Verlag.
• Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(3), 289-320. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391470
• Hage, J. & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 72-92. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391213
• Hage, J. & Aiken, M. (1969). Routine technology, social structures and organizational goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3), 366-377. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391132
• Hage, J. & Aiken, M. (1970). Social change in complex organizations. New York: Random House.
• Hall, R. H., Johnson, N. J. & Haas, J. E. (1967). Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 903-912. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2092844
• Hall, R. H. (1999). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Hunt, R.G. (1970). Technology and organization. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 236-252. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/254962
• Jackson, J. M. (2007) An examination of the relationship between elementary school principals’ perceptions of shared decision making and three organizational structures (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3279738)
• Kaynova Emsen, A. (2010). Orgutsel yapi unsurlarinin calisanlarin orgutsel adalet algilamalari uzerine etkisi: Antalya saglik orgutlerinde bir uygulama [The effect of organizational structure elements on organizational justice perceptions of employees: Research in Antalya health organizations] (Unpublished master's thesis, Akdeniz University, Antalya). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
• Kumar, A. & Sharma, R. (2000). Principles of business management. New Delphi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
• Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. New Jersey: Prentice – Hall International Editions.
• Miskel, C. (1979, April). Demographic characteristics, faculty attitudes and school structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.
• Miskel, C. G., Fevurly, R. & Stewart, J. (1979). Organizational structures and processes, perceived school effectiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013131X7901500308
• Murphy, M. J., Bishop, L. K. & George, J. R. (1975, April). Defining organizational properties of schools: A focus on structure. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
• Ordu, A. (2011). Ilkogretim okullarinda orgutsel yapi ile orgut sagligi arasindaki ilişkiler [The relationships between organizational structure and organizational health in primary schools] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pamukkale University, Denizli). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65-105. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391262
• Reimann, B. C. (1973). On the dimensions of bureaucratic structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(4), 462-476. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392199
• Robbins, S. P. (1994). Essentials of organizational behavior (S. A. Ozturk, Translation.) Eskisehir: ETAM A.S. Anadolu University.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.4258&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Scott, W.R. (1975). Organizational structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.000245
• Slavec, A. & Drnovsek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review for Central and South - Eastern Europe, 14(1), 39-62. Retrieved from http://ojs.ebrjournal.net/ojs/index.php/ebr/article/view/69/pdf
• Steaffens, S. (2001) A descriptive study of the organizational culture and structure of accelerated schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3049554)
• Sucu, Y. (2000). Gecmisten gunumuze yonetim dusuncesindeki gelismeler: Butunlestirici bir durumsallik modeli [Developments in management thinking from past to present: An Integrative contingency Model]. Ankara: Elit.
• Sencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranissal olcumlerde guvenilirlik ve gecerlilik [Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measures]. Ankara: Seckin Publication.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. USA: Pearson
• Tavsancil, E. (2002). Tutumlarin olculmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Publication.
• Toker, K., Cetin, C., Guven, B. & Aksu, B. (2017). Orgut yapisinin orgutsel sinizm uzerindeki etkisi uzerine lojistik sektorunde bir arastirma [On the effect of organizational structure on organizational cynicism a research in the logistics sector]. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 7(4), 247-264.
• Tortop, N., Isbir, E. G., Aykac, B., Yayman, H. & Ozer, M. A. (2007). Yonetim bilimi [Administrative science]. Ankara: Nobel Publication.
• Wagner III, J. A. & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• Williams, J. A. (1981). The effect of organizational structure of schools and role orientation of teachers on job satisfaction of teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey). Available from ProOuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8120869)
• Yildirim, K. (2014). Mekanik-organik orgutsel yapi degiskenleri perspektifiyle 6528 sayili kanunun okullarin orgutsel yapisinda yaratabilecegi degisimin incelenmesi [Examining the possible changes in the school organizational structure caused by the law 6528 in the perspective of mechanic organic organizational variables]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 359-391.
• Yurdugul, H. (2005, Eylul). Olcek gelistirme calismalarinda kapsam gecerligi icin kapsam gecerlik indekslerinin kullanilmasi [Using content validity indices for content validation in scale development studies]. 14th National Educational Science Congress, Denizli.