İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 372 - 384 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.17130/ijmeb.756918 İndeks Tarihi: 23-11-2020

İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı iç girişimcilikte ortaya çıkabilecek kör noktaları tespit etmek ve bu körnoktalarla ilgili çözüm önerilerini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma 2019 yılı Ekim ayında Adana TicaretOdası’na kayıtlı 86 işletmeden rastgele seçilmiş 98 beyazyakalı işgören ile gerçekleştirilmiştir.Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş ve fenomenolojik araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır.Elde edilen sonuçlara göre iç girişimciliğin yeni girişimler ve yeni işletmeler, rekabetçi saldırganlık,proaktiflik, kendini yenileme risk boyutlarına ilişkin kör noktalar tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları içgirişimciliğin örgüt içinde girişimciliğin gelişmesinde lider faktörünün ağırlıklı olduğunu göstermektedir.Yeni girişimlerin ve işletmelerin oluşturulması ve geliştirilmesi lider ve işgören risk almaları, devlet teşvikve destekleri, eğitim, vergisel yükler, lider teşvikindeki eksiklikler ve bilgi paylaşımı konusunda yaşanansorunlar nedeniyle ortaya çıkan kör noktaların ortadan kaldırılması ile mümkün hale gelebilir. İşletmeniniçgirişimci davranışlarında ekonomik koşullar, değişen koşullara adaptasyon sorunu ve güvensizlik riskalma unsuru konusunda önemli engeller oluşturmakla birlikte bu unsurlar içgirişimcilikte birer kör noktaolarak tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime:

A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ON DETERMINATION OF BLIND SPOTS IN INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Öz:
The aim of this study is to identify the blind points that may arise in intrapreneurship and to propose solutions for these blind points. The study was conducted in October 2019 with 98 whitecollar workers randomly selected from 86 enterprises registered in Adana Chamber of Commerce. The qualitative research method was adopted and a phenomenological research method was used in the research. According to the results, the blind spots of intrapreneurship were determined regarding the dimensions of new initiatives and new businesses, competitive aggression, proactivity, self-renewal risk dimensions. Research results demonstrated that intrapreneurship was the leading factor in the development of entrepreneurship within the organization. The creation and development of new initiatives and businesses can be made possible by eliminating blind spots caused by leaders and employees taking risks, government incentives and supports, education, tax burdens, deficiencies in leader incentives, and problems with information sharing. Economic conditions in the enterprise’s intrapreneurial behavior, the problem of adaptation to changing conditions, and insecurity pose significant obstacles in terms of risktaking, besides, these factors were determined as blind spots in intrapreneurship.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abraham, R. (1997). The relationship of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism to intrapreneurship and organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 179-186.
  • Ahmad, N. H., Nasurdin, A. M., & Zainal, S. R. M. (2012). Nurturing intrapreneurship to enhance job performance: The role of pro-intrapreneurship organizational architecture. Journal of Innovation Management in Small & Medium Enterprises, 1.
  • Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., & Kilic, K. (2010). Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human capital to enhance innovative performance. Management Decision, 48(5), 732-755.
  • Altinay, L. (2004). Implementing international franchising: The role of intrapreneurship. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(5), 426-443.
  • Antoncic, B. (2001). Organizational processes in intrapreneurship: A conceptual integration. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 9(2), 221-235.
  • Antoncic, B. (2003). Risk taking in intrapreneurship: Translating the individual level risk aversion into the organizational risk taking. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(1), 1-23.
  • Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: A comparative structural equation modeling study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 309-325.
  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2000). Intrapreneurship modeling in transition economies: A comparison of Slovenia and the United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 21.
  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527.
  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24.
  • Auer Antoncic, J., & Antoncic, B. (2011). Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: A model. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 589-607.
  • Augusto Felício, J., Rodrigues, R., & Caldeirinha, V. R. (2012). The effect of intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Management Decision, 50(10), 1717-1738.
  • Baruah, B., & Ward, A. (2015). Metamorphosis of intrapreneurship as an effective organizational strategy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 811-822.
  • Benitez-Amado, J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Nieves Perez-Arostegui, M. (2010). Information technologyenabled intrapreneurship culture and firm performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 550-566.
  • Bosma, N. S., Stam, F. C., & Wennekers, A. R. M. (2010). Intrapreneurship: An international study.
  • Bouchard, V., & Basso, O. (2011). Exploring the links between entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(2), 219- 231.
  • Brunåker, S., & Kurvinen, J. (2006). Intrapreneurship, local initiatives in organizational change processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 118-132.
  • Carrier, C. (1994). Intrapreneurship in large firms and SMEs: A comparative study. International Small Business Journal, 12(3), 54-61.
  • Carrier, C. (1996). Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 5-20.
  • Chisholm, T. A. (1987). Intrapreneurship and bureaucracy. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 36.
  • Christensen, K. S. (2005). Enabling intrapreneurship: The case of a knowledge-intensive industrial company. European Journal of Innovation Management.
  • De Jong, J., & Wennekers, S. (2008). Intrapreneurship; Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour. EIM Business and Policy Research, H200802.
  • Desouza, K. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship: Managing ideas within your organization. University of Toronto Press.
  • Duncan, W. J., Ginter, P. M., Rucks, A. C., & Jacobs, T. D. (1988). Intrapreneurship and the reinvention of the corporation. Business Horizons, 31(3), 16-21.
  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 2(1), 335-362.
  • Fitzsimmons, J. R., Douglas, E. J., Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2005). Intrapreneurship in Australian firms. Journal of Management & Organization, 11(1), 17-27.
  • Heinonen, J., & Korvela, K. (2003). How about measuring intrapreneurship. Small Business Institute, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.
  • Hisrich, R. D. (1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. American Psychologist, 45(2), 209.
  • Gündoğdu, M. Ç. (2012). Re-thinking entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and innovation: A multiconcept perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 296-303.
  • Kacperczyk, A. J. (2012). Opportunity structures in established firms: Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 484-521.
  • Kistruck, G. M., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The interplay of form, structure, and embeddedness in social intrapreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 735-761.
  • Larkin, M., Shaw, R., & Flowers, P. (2019). Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(2), 182-198.
  • Luchsinger, V., & Bagby, D. R. (1987). Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, comparisons, and contrasts. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 10.
  • Lumpkin, G. T. (2014). Intrapreneurship and innovation. In The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 269-296). Psychology Press. Manimala, M. J., Jose, P. D., & Thomas, K. R. (2006). Organizational constraints on innovation and intrapreneurship: Insights from public sector. Vikalpa, 31(1), 49-50.
  • Mihas, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
  • Molina, C., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). Fostering organizational performance: The role of learning and intrapreneurship. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(5), 388-400.
  • Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Mangin, J. P. L. (2014). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(1), 103-119.
  • Morse, C. W. (1986). The delusion of intrapreneurship. Long Range Planning, 19(6), 92-95.
  • Nielsen, R. P., Peters, M. P., & Hisrich, R. D. (1985). Intrapreneurship strategy for internal markets— corporate, non-profit and government institution cases. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 181- 189.
  • Özsungur, F. (2020). Blind spots of women’s entrepreneurship: Case of Adana. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi-International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 11(39), 166-202.
  • Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19-34.
  • Ricci, L., Lanfranchi, J. B., Lemetayer, F., Rotonda, C., Guillemin, F., Coste, J., & Spitz, E. (2019). Qualitative methods used to generate questionnaire items: A systematic review. Qualitative Health Research, 29(1), 149-156.
  • Richards, K. A. R., Killian, C. M., Graber, K. C., & Kern, B. D. (2019). Chapter 4: Studying recruitment and retention in PETE: Qualitative and quantitative research methods. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38(1), 22-36.
  • Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 337-360.
  • Riley, S., Brooks, J., Goodman, S., Cahill, S., Branney, P., Treharne, G. J., & Sullivan, C. (2019). Celebrations amongst challenges: Considering the past, present and future of the qualitative methods in psychology section of the British Psychology Society. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 464-482.
  • Rule, E. G., & Irwin, D. W. (1988). Fostering intrapreneurship: The new competitive edge. Journal of Business Strategy, 9(3), 44-47.
  • Sayeed, O. B., & Gazdar, M. K. (2003). Intrapreneurship: Assessing and defining attributes of intrapreneurs. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 75-89.
  • Seshadri, D. V. R., & Tripathy, A. (2006). Innovation through intrapreneurship: The road less travelled. Vikalpa, 31(1), 17-30.
  • Spiers, J., & Riley, R. (2019). Analysing one dataset with two qualitative methods: The distress of general practitioners, a thematic and interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(2), 276-290.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • van Manen, M. (2019). Uniqueness and novelty in phenomenological inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 1077800419829788.
  • Vors, O., Cury, F., Marqueste, T., & Mascret, N. (2019). Enactive phenomenological approach to the trier social stress test: A mixed methods point of view. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), 143, e58805.
  • Zenovia, C. P. (2011). Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship. Journal Review of International Comparative Management, 12(5), 971-980.
APA Özsungur F (2020). İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. , 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
Chicago Özsungur Fahri İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. (2020): 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
MLA Özsungur Fahri İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. , 2020, ss.372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
AMA Özsungur F İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. . 2020; 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
Vancouver Özsungur F İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. . 2020; 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
IEEE Özsungur F "İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA." , ss.372 - 384, 2020. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
ISNAD Özsungur, Fahri. "İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA". (2020), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.756918
APA Özsungur F (2020). İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 16(2), 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
Chicago Özsungur Fahri İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi 16, no.2 (2020): 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
MLA Özsungur Fahri İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, vol.16, no.2, 2020, ss.372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
AMA Özsungur F İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi. 2020; 16(2): 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
Vancouver Özsungur F İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi. 2020; 16(2): 372 - 384. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
IEEE Özsungur F "İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA." Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 16, ss.372 - 384, 2020. 10.17130/ijmeb.756918
ISNAD Özsungur, Fahri. "İÇ GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE KÖR NOKTALARIN TESPİTİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA". Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi 16/2 (2020), 372-384. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.756918