Tradicionális versus innovatív társaságirányítási és szervezeti formák ----- It's title in English: Traditional versus Innovative Forms of Corporate Governance and Organizations

Absztrakt: Jelen tanulmany a 2009-es Versenykepessegkutatas kerdőives felmeres bazisan arra a kerdesre keresi a valaszt, hogy az elmult kozel 20 evben a magyar vallalatok strukturalis alkalmazkodasa hogyan valtozott. A valtozas kettős ertelmben ertendő: egyreszt arra utal, hogy vajon az evtizedek ota dominans funkcionalis szervezeti forma hegemoniaja toretlenul jellemzi-e a vallalatokat, illetve arra, hogy a valasztott szervezeti modellek celszerűen kepesek-e tamogatni a vallalatok műkodeset, vegső soron hozza tudnak-e jarulni versenykepessegukhoz. Kerdeseinkre a strukturalis kontingenciaelmelet osszefuggesrendszerere, es kutatasi eredmenyeire tamaszkodva kiserlunk meg valaszt adni. Tanulmanyunk első reszeben bemutatjuk a kontingencialista kutatasok eddigi eredmenyeit es altalunk hasznalt kutatasi modelljet, valamint attekintjuk a magyar vallalatfejlődes elmult evtizedeit – beleertve a rendszervaltas előtti evtizedeket is. Ezen korszak egyetlen hasznalatos modellje, a funkcionalis struktura, ugy tűnik, melyebben hatarozza meg jelenunket kulturalisan, mint azok a szakmai szuksegszerűsegek, amelyek innovativabb, rugalmasabb, decentralizaltabb modelleket igenyelnenek hazai vallalatainktol. Tanulmanyunk masodik reszeben pedig a legfrissebb adatfelvetel eredmenyeit foglaljuk ossze nehany olyan uj elemzesi iranyt is beleertve, amelyek a korabbi adatfelvetelek soran nem voltak kutatasaink fokuszaban. Az adatok szerint ugyan folyamatos csokkenest mutat a funkcionalis modell alkalmazasa es ezzel egyidejűleg folyamatos novekedessel jellemezhető a divizionalis struktura alkalmazasa, vegeredmenyben a vizsgalt vallalatok legnagyobb aranyban a funkcionalis szervezeti modellt alkalmazzak meg ma is. Magyarazatkent erre a viszonylag homogen alaptevekenyseg, valamint a kis- es kozepes vallalati meret szolgalhat. Azonban a formalis strategia hianya, a vallalatok jellemzően lokalis piacokra valo koncentralasa, a vezetők centralizacios hajlama, a funkcionalis forma evtizedek alatt bejaratott volta tovabbra is kerdesesse teszi, hogy a vallalatok strukturalis alkalmazkodasa mennyire koveti a celszerűseg, a kulső es belső illeszkedes logikajat, illetve mennyiben inkabb a strategiai valasztas azon logikajara epul, amely a meglevő rendszerek fenntartasat szolgaljak. ----- Abstract: This paper examines the competence of structural adaptation and its evolution during the past two decades in Hungarian companies. The background of analysis has been provided by the 2009 Competitiveness Study carried out by Corvinus University research groups. Our perspective is twofold: on one hand, our aim has been to have a feedback whether the classical U-form structure is still the dominant form of organization in Hungary, as it has been for decades now. On the other hand, we wanted to verify whether the chosen organizational form of Hungarian firms can effectively support their competitiveness. In order to answer these questions, we have built our analysis on the contingency theory and the findings of our field study. The first part of this paper expounds the previous researches based on contingency theory and presents our theoretical model. We briefly describe how management in Hungarian companies developed during the past decades, including the Communist regime. We assume that the dominant structural form of this historical period, the U-form or functional way of organizing culturally shapes our present as well; and this impact seems to be even deeper than the one of the actual environment of our companies which ought to require more flexible or more decentralized organizational structures. In the second part, we resume the findings of the last questionnaire survey and develop new research directions which the previous analyses did not deal with. Research data shows that our companies adopt the M-form structure on a continuously enlarging scale. Consequently, the supra-dominance of the classical U-form seems to be fading, yet it still appears as the dominant form in the responding companies. One of the reasons for this phenomenon can be the relative homogeneity of their businesses (the major part of their income coming from one or two business lines maximum), or their relative small size. Yet, the lack of formal strategy, their focus on merely local markets and the centralizing attitude of Hungarian managers, along with the historical past and its structural heritance, make it questionable whether the choice of organizational form in Hungarian firms follows a pragmatic rational of fit with the environment. It can be that the logic of structural choice is determined by the will of maintaining existing patterns rather than adopting new ones.