سنجش تصمیم گیری استراتژیک و بهره وری در زمینه های مختلف کشور : مقایسه شرکت های انگلیسی و ترکی

This paper compares the relative efficiency of the strategic decision making (SDM) processes of British and Turkish firms. The technique of data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to measure the relative efficiency of these firms. The evidence obtained by the DEA analysis reveals that the Turkish firms tend to be superior to the British firms in terms of their SDM efficiency. There is a significant difference in scale returns with respect to the country of origin of the firms. The analysis of the improvement potential of inputs indicates that Turkish firms place more emphasis on managing environmental turbulence to enhance their SDM efficiency, while British firms tend to overly focus on the design of an appropriate organizational structure. However, no significant difference was noted between the two groups of firms with regard to the level of resources and effort exerted on formal strategic planning practices. The analysis of output deficits reveals that there is a significant difference between British and Turkish firms in the sources of inefficiency.

The appropriateness of existing operations research (OR) and management science (MS) methods for strategic management literature has long been advocated by a number of scholars [1], [2] and [3]. One key area of contribution from OR/MS literature falls into the efficiency-based approach to competitive advantage which has a long tradition in the strategic management literature [4] and [5]. Williamson [5] posits that firms build sustainable competitive advantage only through efficiency and effectiveness. For several years, a growing number of scholars in the strategy field have suggested that achieving the proper fit or alignment among the organization, strategy and environment has important performance implications and is vital to gaining competitive advantage in highly competitive markets [6], [7], [8] and [9]. The rapidly changing business environment makes it important for firms to measure the relative efficiency of their strategic decision making (SDM) process in terms of building superior performance and gaining competitive advantage against their rivals. The relative efficiency of SDM can be viewed as an index of strategic fit which involves a pattern, set or combination of variables that interact with each other in determining performance. This composite index should be based on the input and output activities of each firm. It provides information about the efficiency of the SDM process of the firms and whether more input is required to achieve a given output. Knowledge of the relative efficiency of SDM could also help firms understand their deficiencies and identify industry leaders to benchmark. The principal focus of this study is on deriving an index of a firm's SDM efficiency by transforming inputs into outputs relative to its counterparts. The methodology used to evaluate the relative efficiency of SDM in this study is known as data envelopment analysis (DEA). This technique has been applied extensively in the field of OR/MS across a wide range of industries as well as in not-for-profit organizations [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23], but there has been relatively little diffusion into the broader study of management and related disciplines. In the strategy field, DEA has recently been emerging as a powerful tool of data analysis [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and [31]. The assessment of SDM efficiency ought to be a major item on the agenda of researchers in the strategic management field, not least because the issue of how appropriately a firm aligns its strategy, organizational structure, and environment is central to its ability to survive and grow. Given the need to address SDM efficiency within structural contingency theory, the study aims to specify why some firms might be better at achieving the congruity of environmental, planning and structural complexities. The DEA approach adopted in this study illustrates how differences in SDM efficiency between firms can be ascertained empirically and will thus help management to determine policy and action scientifically. Another key objective of this study lies in its attempt to compare the SDM efficiency of firms from two different nations, Britain and Turkey. The notion that each nation has a distinct administrative heritage that affects its management style can be derived from existing cross-cultural studies and recent evidence from institutional investigations [32] and [33]. Britain and Turkey have different environmental contexts and are characterized by substantial institutional and cultural differences. Based on the work of Hofstede [34] and more recently on Globe Project dimensions [34], there is a strong consensus that in the Turkish culture there is a higher need for “power distance” and “uncertainty avoidance” and a lower need for “assertiveness” and “individualism” than in the British culture. Further evidence stems from the institutional literature. Those who have compared the managerial and institutional characteristics of these two countries note that decentralization appears to be a more legitimate means of control among British firms, while centralized mechanisms are more prevalent among Turkish firms [33] and [35]. Unlike most advanced market economies, the business environment in Turkey has been characterized by high economic growth, unsaturated markets, consumption-prone population, relatively weak financial and legal infrastructure, and more importantly lack of economic and political stability. Comparing the efficiency of SDM processes of firms from two different country contexts with distinct administrative heritage provides a valuable contribution to the literature as most prior studies on the SDM process have focused on firms from a single country, either from a mature market economy or an emerging country. The findings of this study also provide some important insights to the applicability of Western strategic management thinking to the business environment in emerging countries [36] and [37]. It is becoming increasingly important to examine how closely the results of empirical research conducted in the West apply to strategic management in other countries. Despite the plethora of research on managerial practices in Western countries, comparatively little is known about their equivalent in emerging countries and Turkey in particular [38]. In terms of managerial attitudes and work practices, not surprisingly, British firms in general have been characterized as adhering more to Anglo-American business culture than have Turkish firms. The latter have more commonalities to the Arabic cluster in terms of values, norms and behaviors in organizations and business relationships [39] as well as governance and leadership practices ([40]. In this regard Turkey is an instructive case as it is currently at the center of several debates given its ongoing membership negotiations with the EU. The characteristics of the Turkish economy and its strategic location as a bridgehead between East and West make it an interesting case to examine SDM efficiency. Since the early 1980s, government policies in Turkey have aimed at developing a free market economy and have encouraged an outward-oriented development policy. Significant progress has been achieved in the liberalization of trade and investment policies and the pursuit of macroeconomic stability and economic growth [41]. The study is organized as follows. The next section provides a brief literature review of the concept of strategic fit. Research methods along with the measurement of input and output variables are in Section 3. The fourth section presents the DEA model. The results and discussion are provided in the fifth section. Conclusions are in the final section.

The evidence obtained from the analysis of relative efficiency reveals that the sample of Turkish firms tends to be superior to the British firms in terms of the efficiency of their strategic decision making. With the analysis of scale returns, on the whole there is a significant difference in scale returns with respect to the country of origin of the firms. As for each individual category of scale returns, it is noted that: (i) British firms tend to waste the input resources of strategic decision making as they have the higher percentage of DRS; (ii) in terms of CRS, Turkish firms do not tend to differ much from their British counterparts since their percentage of CRS is only marginally higher than that of British firms; and (iii) Turkish firms should devote more effort to SDM practices in order to enhance performance, as they have a relatively higher percentage of IRS than do the British firms. The analysis of the improvement potential of inputs indicates that Turkish firms place more emphasis on managing environmental turbulence to enhance their SDM efficiency, while British firms tend to overly focus on the design of an appropriate organizational structure. However, no significant difference was noted between the groups of firms with regard to the level of resources and effort exerted on formal planning practices. The analysis of output deficits reveals that there is a significant difference between Turkish and British firms in the sources of inefficiency. Although this exploratory study provides useful insights to the use of DEA as a modeling tool for managers in measuring the efficiency of SDM process, its limitations should also be acknowledged. Perhaps the most serious limitation of this study stems from the nature of the sample with its narrow focus on large-size firms from two different country contexts thus precluding the generalization of findings. Therefore, the findings of this study should be considered exploratory in nature. Future studies may use a larger sample size and panel data with different sets of inputs and outputs to test the robustness of the results. Second, this study relied on cross-sectional data set to examine the SDM efficiency of the firms from Britain and Turkey. However, it is suggested that competitiveness or efficiency can be better evaluated through analysis of average efficiencies over time [102]. Future studies may therefore utilize longitudinal designs to assess time-varying efficiency relying on in-depth case studies in large scale organizations. Third, the DEA approach used in this study is sensitive to the inputs and outputs used in the model. It is also possible in DEA for a unit to be efficient by emphasizing relatively few dimensions while completely ignoring other dimensions. This is not so much an issue in this study, however, due to a fairly parsimonious set of inputs and outputs and a relatively large sample size. This problem can be mitigated further by incorporating managerial preferences in terms of input and output weight restrictions in DEA. In addition, it would also be useful to employ alternative parametric methods to DEA, such as stochastic frontier analysis (SFA), in measuring the efficiency of our sample units. Fifth, while all of the measures have been validated in previous research, they are perceptual and self reported, which potentially might be subject to retrospection and common methods biases. The data were collected from single respondents in an organization which might be a cause for possible response bias. Caution should, therefore, be exercised when interpreting the results. Finally, given the paucity of strategy research in emerging country contexts, there is an obvious need for comparison studies. Particularly useful would be those that have some commonalities with Turkey, such as Brazil, Russia and India.