Investigation of the Effects of Organizational Change and Environment on Company Competitiveness

Environment

Organizations are open systems that are affected by their environment and affect their environment. Therefore, Organizations have to consider environmental impacts in all decisions and practices. For this reason, Environmental-Strategy-Performance Opinion appraises environmental factors as critical to the determination of strategies. For superior performance, it suggests a harmony between context and strategy. However, these proactive matching strategies have not been comperatively adequately examined in the supply chains. The aim of the research is to determine the environmental impacts of firms, to contribute to the literature by examining how the strategies they develop with the companies they need to cooperate with according to their areas of expertise affect performance. On the basis of environmental impact, the operations performed by the organization in the sector, It is based on their strategies against environmental conditions. The performance of organizations can be determined as a result of the strategy they have implemented. When the environmental impact is successful, we can argue that the strategy is successful. The reason why organizations take into consideration the environment when determining a strategy is to take the right steps in order to respond to the threats coming from the environment. There is a need for proactive responses in a dynamic structure. This is a pattern that is planned to match the underlying resources in response to the binding that supports the performance results. The environmental context encourages companies to invest in creating critical resources and to use effective combinations in order to produce competitive results (Jones, 1998). The game plan is the appropriate structuring of inter-company resources to ensure compliance with context (Srivastava, Iyer, & Rawwas, 2016). Furthermore, the environment creates both constraints and opportunities for companies. Consequently, the skill to adjust to environmental changes is vital to settles the competitiveness of a firm. When faced with the rise of new global competition, rapidly changing technology and an ever more ambiguous business environment, companies can choose to build relationships such as strategic alliances (Siew-Phaik et al., 2013). In light of this perspective, The external environment in which the organization operates, the field of activity of the organization, the mode of action, the social structure in which the organization has to obey, may necessitate an organizational change or create a situation that prevents such a change. Since the organization is a sub-system of the social structure, it will be impossible to achieve a process of change and development by completely isolating itself from the social structure, Certain organizations, of course, experience the processes of change faster than the society in which they are involved, while others are slower. However, it is unlikely that organizations, which at least do not change as quickly as the society, can maintain their existence. For this reason, it is a critical skill to manage organizational change by following the changes in the society, especially in organizational administrators (Jones, 1998). As a result, how an organization has knowledge about its environment, how it behaves and how it selects and processes information, and how an organization's context affects its actions are important factors.

Organizational Change

Organizational change, with the various subsystem elements of an organization and any change that may occur in the relations between them. Organizational change, which can be defined as the organization’s self-harmonization by reacting to the changes in its environment for the purpose of sustaining its lives. Additionally, Organizations are open systems. They cannot protect themselves from environmental changes. They must therefore react to the internal and external pressures to change. Organizations need creativity to survive in a fugacious environment. From resource dependence perspective, The resource dependence theory, which focuses on what the organizations do and why, in the face of the obstacles and threats their environment may create states that organizations are inevitably related to their environment by saying that organizations exist to be effective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In this context, organizations have a definite dependence on other organizations, as most of the resources they need to ensure the continuity of the organizations are provided by other organizations around them. Therefore, the main problem here is to reduce the uncertainty in the environment by guaranteeing the flow of resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). At this point, the resource dependency approach, which gives the manager the task of managing the environment and creating as necessary, accepts the existence of actors on the environment, even though it imposes some limitations, although it mentions the adaptation of the organization to the environment. Therefore, although the change according to resource dependency is based on harmony, at this point the manager is an actor who is responsible for changing the organization. The changes made by organizations in order to be successful against competitors can force employees; Since creativity is not inheritable, it comes from forcing the status quo rather than adhering to routines (Jeong & Shin, 2017). Contingency theorists emphasize the importance of harmony or partner between the organization and the environment that establishes the performance of the organization. Once more, in consonance with voluntarist view, organizations effectively engage in strategic actions in order to affect suitability, rather than being passively driven by environmental changes. The followers of a particular system share their mutual experiences, their survival strategies in a competitive environment, or their achievements in their performance, but the ability of an organization to continue its activities in a stable and successful manner in a competitive environment, organizations' adaptation to changes in their environment, or their pioneering lies. Therefore, it is argued that strategies will be successful if organizational change is adapted to the environment. The literature on dynamic capabilities underlines the lack to change the resource and ability base that effectively prevents firms from observing and adjusting to external environmental changes to inactivity in routines (Makkonen, Pohjola, Olkkonen, & Koponen, 2014). In the given theoretical context, the following hypotheses have been developed;

H1: The environment has an statistically impact on organizational change

H6: In the relationship between environment and innovation performance, organizational change has a mediation effect.

H7: The relationship between the environment and the competitiveness of the firm has a variable effect on organizational change.

Innovation Performance

Training activities are related to organizational innovations include the acqusition machinery and equipment, other external information and other capital goods. Concordantly, As LePine and Van Dyne (2001) emphasize that innovation begins with the appreciation and production of new ideas or solutions that test past practices and standard operating methods. Besides, Innovation is a complicated process that involves several activities that are basically interdependent but also very unlike (Liang, Shu, & Farh, 2019). Innovation is described as: “the fostering of an inwardly produced or merchandised tool, order, management, plan, operation, output, or supply that is new to the embarking on organization” (Damanpour, 1988). When the literature is examined, when organizations carry out research and development activities based on innovation, there is a consensus that they will be in an advantageous position against the competitors. When look at the advantages of the organizations performing innovation; being in an important position in the market in which they are located, being among the winners in the competition race, increasing their revenues and performing a successful performance in line with the determined targets. So many studies center upon produce innovation, operation innovation and administrative innovation. In particular, innovation performance was measured with regard to technical innovation and administration innovation. Whether organizations are successful in innovation; competitors' products, market shares, management styles and business models. At the same time, the success of innovation in the product is taken into account in the performance criteria. The reason for looking at these criteria is that a single criterion does not determine the success criteria in innovation. Innovation performance should be measured by examining different criteria together (Abdallah, Dahiyat, & Matsui, 2019). In the given theoretical context, the following hypotheses have been developed;

H2: The environment has a statistically impact on innovation performance

H4: Organizational change has a statistically impact on innovation performance.

Firm Competitiveness

The core of defining competitive strategy is interrelating a firm to its environment. Even though the relevant environment is very wide, surrounding sociable right along with economic impulses, the key feature of the firm’s environment is the business or industries in which it contends (Porter, 1985). A knowledge-based perspective emphasizes information as a critical resource that concludes the competitive advantage of firms. A firm must advance the dynamic ability in order to integrate knowledge into areas of expertise and maintain competitive advantages to learn and in order to protect private knowledge without expropriation and imitation of competitors. Firm competitiveness is defined as the degree to which a firm enters in a marketplace, compared to its major rivals (Jiang, Yang, Pei, & Wang, 2016). Within this context, organizations can explain that they achieve a competitive advantage by acquiring valuable, rare, non-substitutable resources from the external environment. Comparing these two theories authorizes a focussed perspective on how organizations specify resource requirements, and allows organizations to examine a focussed perspective of how they can achieve these valuable resources (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009). To survive, you need resources to organizations. It is possible for organizations to control the resources they have by using the right strategies against competitors. In this sense, organizations should use their resources correctly in order not to fall behind in the competition. If organizations are unable to control resources, they may be likely to have problems in re-supplying resources. They can also be in an insecure environment against competitors. Organizations that are successful in the competition race determine product-oriented strategies for the control and utilization of their resources and realize product innovation (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). On the other hand, the resources are assumed to be asymmetric (non-congruence) and heterogeneous among firms in the same industry. Because industry-based theory emphasizes the uniqueness of in-house resources and firms for this hypothesis and sustainable competitive advantage, it forms the basis known today as resource-based theory (Barney & Hesterly, 2012). In the given theoretical context, the following hypotheses have been developed;

H3: Environment has the effect on the firm competitiveness.

H5: Organizational change has the effect on the Firm competitiveness.

Research Goal

In this research, we aim to determine the effects of the relationships between innovation performance and firm competitiveness with the environment change variable effect. The selection of the manufacturing Sector is the realization of the productions of the product.

Analyses

The questions are composed of questions by representing 4 variables. In the first part of the survey, the demographic information of the individuals and information about the work are given. In the second part of the questionnaire, there are questions by representing 4 variables. Environment scale; In literature research, important studies referenced in many studies were taken into consideration; Siew-Phaik et al. (2013) and, Chen and Lin (2004) used in the study by using the 5-point Likert scale and factor analysis and reliability analysis. The scale developed by Zamor in 1998 was used to measure organizational change. Innovation Performance, Nelson and Winter (1982), Danneels (2002), Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2009), Chen and Huang (2009), Verona and Ravasi (2003), Wang and Ahmed (2007), Winter (2006), Laursen and Salter (2006) developed questions. Firm competitiveness, Wu (2008), Wu et al., (2008) developed by the scale was used.

Research Framework

Independent Variables; Environment, Mediation variable; Organizational Change, Dependent Variables; A research model has been applied as Innovation Performance and Firm Competitiveness. In the study, a quantitative approach was adopted as the data were analyzed in order to designate the relationship between the statistical concepts. In the analysis of the relationships between the variables in the statistical sense, evaluations are made by analyzing the scales representing the variables in the collected data (Thomas, Silverman, & Nelson, 2015).

See Full Size >

Büyüköztürk (2005) is defined as a multivariate statistical technique that aims to discover meaningful variables by subtracting the scales representing variables, the non-meaningful or non-variable scales. In other words, factor analysis is performed in order to evaluate whether the scales representing the variables are appropriate. In the study, there are 31 scales representing 4 variables. These scales were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed. As a result of factor analysis, 7 questions did not show factor distribution. The remaining 24 questions are scattered on 4 factors. The factors that are adhere to factor analysis with factor loads are shown in the table below:

Reliability Analysis; The reason for the reliability analysis after factor analysis is to check the internal consistency of the scales representing the variables and to calculate the mean between the scales. When the researches in the literature are examined, especially 0.70 ratio related to reliability analysis of Nunnally (1978) and Hair, Robert, and David (2000) are taken into consideration for social sciences (Büyüköztürk, 2015; Hair et al., 2000; Nunnally, 1978).

Correlation Analysis; the most efficacious relationships between Environment, Organizational Change, Innovation Performance and Firm Competitiveness are discussed. As we mentioned before, the analyzes carried out so far were carried out on 300 questionnaires obtained from the institutions.

According to Regression Analysis Results; Supported and Unsupported Hypotheses Regression analysis was used to test predicted research hypotheses and 5 hypotheses were considered in Table 04 . except for the inter-variable effect of these regression analyzes.

Determination of mediation Effect in Research Model; in particular, Organizational change-mediation variable (MV); The mediation role in the relationship between the environment and the Innovation performance-dependent variable (DV); Organizational change; Environment-independent variable (IV) with the firm competitiveness-dependent variable (DV); as a result of the analysis, it is stated that there is an effect with hypotheses established;

Sobel test is also used to analyze the effect of the mediation variable (MV). After regression analysis, the reason for analyzing the effect of the mediation variable by the sobel test is to test whether the effect of the mediation variable in both analyzes. In 1986, Baron and Kenny conducted an important study on the analysis of the effect of the mediation variable between the IV and the DV. In this study, it was aimed to improve the mediation analysis performed by sobel in 1982. In the logic of Sobel test, the effect of the MV is analyzed by using standard error values and regression coefficients. In 1995, MacKinnon, Warsi, and Dwyer (1995) developed statistical-based methods in which the mediation variable could be correctly evaluated. There are two main versions of the "Sobel test". These; Aroian (1947) and Goodman in 1960.

In order to explain the mediation effect, p value should be less than 0.05. Mediation variable of organizational change; analysis of the relationship between environment and

In order to explain the mediation effect, p value should be less than 0.05. Hypothesis results;

In our research model, in which the variable effect of Organizational change is measured, it is observed that there is an effect on the relationship between Innovation performance and Firm competitiveness in the relationship between Organizational change and variable effect.