Author :
Abstract
Two of the most salient, interesting trends in the post-1950 U.S. economy have been the upcoming importance of the service sector and the growth in the skill premium in wages despite a large expansion in the relative supply of high-skilled workers. The growth of the service sector and the relative demand for high-skilled workers have been well understood in independent literatures. Key theoretical idea linking these two concepts based on structural characteristics differences between service and product firms. In detail, service firms tend to be having few separate boundary roles, much geographical dispersion, decentralized decision making, higher employee skill level, interpersonal skill emphasis and lower formalization. Whereas product/manufacturing firms tend to be having many separate boundary roles, little geographical dispersion, centralized decision making, lower employee skill level, technical skill emphasis and higher formalization. In other words, according to deep analysis of organizational theory before writing this paper, it is seen that service firms tend to be organic while manufacturing firms tend to be mechanistic in nature… It should also be added that small service firms tend to be having smaller export rates. Throughout this paper this will be analyzed within sections: at first section introduction will be given. In section 2, theoretical roots in other words literature review on the subject will be presented. Causes of general structure differences will be explained in detail. In section 3, after explaining the historical development, service firms in Turkey will be brought up for discussion and comparison based on their structures and trading figures. Section 4 will include structure foresight, further research, discussion and conclusion. Besides giving insight about service firms for comparison purposes, the purpose of this paper is to provide information for the potential researchers about basic aspects of structure attitudes and behaviors, since it is so newly presented.
Keywords
Abstract
Two of the most salient, interesting trends in the post-1950 U.S. economy have been the upcoming importance of the service sector and the growth in the skill premium in wages despite a large expansion in the relative supply of high-skilled workers. The growth of the service sector and the relative demand for high-skilled workers have been well understood in independent literatures. Key theoretical idea linking these two concepts based on structural characteristics differences between service and product firms. In detail, service firms tend to be having few separate boundary roles, much geographical dispersion, decentralized decision making, higher employee skill level, interpersonal skill emphasis and lower formalization. Whereas product/manufacturing firms tend to be having many separate boundary roles, little geographical dispersion, centralized decision making, lower employee skill level, technical skill emphasis and higher formalization. In other words, according to deep analysis of organizational theory before writing this paper, it is seen that service firms tend to be organic while manufacturing firms tend to be mechanistic in nature… It should also be added that small service firms tend to be having smaller export rates. Throughout this paper this will be analyzed within sections: at first section introduction will be given. In section 2, theoretical roots in other words literature review on the subject will be presented. Causes of general structure differences will be explained in detail. In section 3, after explaining the historical development, service firms in Turkey will be brought up for discussion and comparison based on their structures and trading figures. Section 4 will include structure foresight, further research, discussion and conclusion. Besides giving insight about service firms for comparison purposes, the purpose of this paper is to provide information for the potential researchers about basic aspects of structure attitudes and behaviors, since it is so newly presented.
