Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

A Research on Member and Organization Distribution Axis in Hybrid Organizations

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 1 - 16, 21.09.2021

Metin Karademir İbrahim Anıl

https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396

Öz

Within the scope of the new institutional theory, the development and change of professions were examined with the pioneering studies carried out with the institutional logic approach; the effects of these at the organizational or organizational field level have been tried to be understood. In the following studies, it has been understood that hybrid organizations that incorporate different institutional logics have significant advantages in responding to various expectations and pressures from the organizational field. In addition to this advantage, the existence of different institutional logics in organizations brings certain difficulties in terms of working together. At this point, it is thought that providing information about the functioning and internal processes of hybrid organizations may be beneficial for both organization managers and literature. In this direction, the study is structured on the examination of micro-level interactions of actors with incompatible institutional logic, taking into account the business processes in organizations. For this purpose, the interactions of R&D employees in TUBITAK projects prepared by enterprises operating in Konya automotive supplier industry and academicians who are project consultants were examined. The study was carried out with a qualitative research design in accordance with the general acceptance in the field of new institutional theory, and it was analyzed with the help of Maxqda program with categories and codes suitable for the explanation of the subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Institutional Theory Institutional Logics Hybrid Organizations Research and Development

Kaynakça

  • Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419-1440. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
  • Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3): 720-752. doi:10.1086/379527
  • Besharov, M. L. & Smith, W. K. (2012). Multiple Logics Within Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Model of Organizational Hybridity. Working Paper, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  • Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and Academia in Convergence: Micro-Institutional Dimensions of R&D Collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002
  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  • Dacin, M. T., Munir, K. &Tracey, P. (2010). Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1393-1418. doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318388
  • DiMaggio, P.&W. Powell (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, (48:2), 1983, 147-160. doi:10.2307/2095101
  • Friedland, R. & R. R. Alford. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions. In P. J.
  • DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,(pp 232-263). Chicago; IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Glynn, M. A. & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the Critics' Corner: Logic Blending, Discursive Change and Authenticity in a Cultural Production System. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1031-1055. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x
  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
  • Kraatz M. & Block E. S. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In Greenwood R. C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson & R. Suddaby (Eds.). The Handbook of Onganizational Institutionalism, (pp. 243-276). Sage Publications, London.
  • Jepperson R. L. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. Powell W. W. ve P.J.DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, (pp. 143-163). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Lounsbury, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 289–307. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24634436
  • Meyer, J.W. & B. Rowan. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2. doi:10.1086/226550
  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
  • Pache, A. & Santos, F. (2010). When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455-476.doi:10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455
  • Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 972- 1001. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0405
  • Perkmann, M., Salter, A., Tartari, V. (2011). Reaching Across Institutional Logics: Arbitrage vs. Contamination. Paper presented at the Druid 2011 on Innovation, Strategy and Structure - Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, June 15-17.
  • Powell, W. W., DiMaggio, P. J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Sauermann, H. & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science. Organization Science, 24(3): 889-909. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0769
  • Seo, M. G. & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional Contradictions, Praxis and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2): 222–247. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6588004
  • Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., Sherif, C. (1961), Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Institute of Group Relations.
  • Smith, W. K., Gonin, M. &Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprises. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  • Thornton, P.H. & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843. doi:10.1086/210361
  • Thornton, P.H. (2001). Personal Versus Market Logics of Control: A Historically Contingent Theory of the Risk of Acquisition. Organization Science, 12(3), 294- 311. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.294.10100
  • Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R., Westerman, G., O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational Design and Innovation Streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 19, Number 5, 1331–1366. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq040
  • Veilleux, S. & Queenton, J. (2015). Accelerating the Pace of Innovation Through University-Industry Collaboration Enhancement: In Search of Mutual Benefits and Trust Building. Journal of International Management Studies, 15, 415– 458. doi: 10.18374/JIMS-15-2.5
  • Versari, P. (2015). Conflict Reduction vs Conflict Resistance in Hybrid Organizations. Paper presented at DRUID15, Rome, June 15-17.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003), Applications of Case Study Research (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Zucker, L.G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review, 42: 726-743. doi:10.2307/2094862

Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 1 - 16, 21.09.2021

Metin Karademir İbrahim Anıl

https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396

Öz

Yeni kurumsal kuram kapsamında kurumsal mantık yaklaşımıyla yapılan öncü çalışmalarla, mesleklerin gelişimi ve değişimi incelenmiş, bunların örgüt ya da örgütsel alan düzeyindeki etkileri anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Takip eden çalışmalarla ise farklı kurumsal mantıkları bünyesinde bulunduran hibrid örgütlerin, örgütsel alandan gelen çeşitli beklenti ve baskılara yanıt vermede önemli ölçüde avantaj sahibi oldukları anlaşılmıştır. Bu avantajın yanında örgütlerdeki farklı kurumsal mantıkların varlığı, birlikte çalışma açısından belli zorlukları gündeme taşımaktadır. Bu noktada hibrid örgütlerin işleyişleri ve içsel süreçleri hakkında bilgi sağlamanın hem örgüt yöneticileri hem de alan yazını için faydalı olabileceği düşünülmüştür. Çalışma bu doğrultuda; örgütlerdeki iş süreçlerini dikkate alarak, uyumsuz kurumsal mantıklara sahip aktörlerin mikro düzeydeki etkileşimlerinin incelenmesi üzerine yapılandırılmıştır. Bunun için Konya otomotiv yan sanayisinde faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin hazırladıkları TÜBİTAK projelerinde yer alan Ar-Ge çalışanları ile proje danışmanı olan akademisyenlerin etkileşimleri incelenmiştir. Çalışma yeni kurumsal kuram alanındaki genel kabule uygun şekilde nitel araştırma deseniyle gerçekleştirilmiş olup, konunun açıklanmasına uygun kategoriler ve kodlar ile Maxqda programı yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal Kuram Kurumsal Mantıklar Hibrid Örgütler Ar-Ge

Kaynakça

  • Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419-1440. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391
  • Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3): 720-752. doi:10.1086/379527
  • Besharov, M. L. & Smith, W. K. (2012). Multiple Logics Within Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Model of Organizational Hybridity. Working Paper, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  • Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and Academia in Convergence: Micro-Institutional Dimensions of R&D Collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002
  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  • Dacin, M. T., Munir, K. &Tracey, P. (2010). Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1393-1418. doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318388
  • DiMaggio, P.&W. Powell (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, (48:2), 1983, 147-160. doi:10.2307/2095101
  • Friedland, R. & R. R. Alford. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions. In P. J.
  • DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,(pp 232-263). Chicago; IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Glynn, M. A. & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the Critics' Corner: Logic Blending, Discursive Change and Authenticity in a Cultural Production System. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1031-1055. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x
  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299
  • Kraatz M. & Block E. S. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In Greenwood R. C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson & R. Suddaby (Eds.). The Handbook of Onganizational Institutionalism, (pp. 243-276). Sage Publications, London.
  • Jepperson R. L. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. Powell W. W. ve P.J.DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, (pp. 143-163). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Lounsbury, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 289–307. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24634436
  • Meyer, J.W. & B. Rowan. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2. doi:10.1086/226550
  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
  • Pache, A. & Santos, F. (2010). When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455-476.doi:10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455
  • Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 972- 1001. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0405
  • Perkmann, M., Salter, A., Tartari, V. (2011). Reaching Across Institutional Logics: Arbitrage vs. Contamination. Paper presented at the Druid 2011 on Innovation, Strategy and Structure - Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, June 15-17.
  • Powell, W. W., DiMaggio, P. J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Sauermann, H. & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science. Organization Science, 24(3): 889-909. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0769
  • Seo, M. G. & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional Contradictions, Praxis and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2): 222–247. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6588004
  • Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., Sherif, C. (1961), Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Institute of Group Relations.
  • Smith, W. K., Gonin, M. &Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprises. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442. doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
  • Thornton, P.H. & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843. doi:10.1086/210361
  • Thornton, P.H. (2001). Personal Versus Market Logics of Control: A Historically Contingent Theory of the Risk of Acquisition. Organization Science, 12(3), 294- 311. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.294.10100
  • Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R., Westerman, G., O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational Design and Innovation Streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 19, Number 5, 1331–1366. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq040
  • Veilleux, S. & Queenton, J. (2015). Accelerating the Pace of Innovation Through University-Industry Collaboration Enhancement: In Search of Mutual Benefits and Trust Building. Journal of International Management Studies, 15, 415– 458. doi: 10.18374/JIMS-15-2.5
  • Versari, P. (2015). Conflict Reduction vs Conflict Resistance in Hybrid Organizations. Paper presented at DRUID15, Rome, June 15-17.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003), Applications of Case Study Research (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Zucker, L.G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review, 42: 726-743. doi:10.2307/2094862
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular İşletme
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Metin Karademir 0000-0001-6612-9577

İbrahim Anıl 0000-0003-0596-0150

Yayımlanma Tarihi 21 Eylül 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Karademir, M., & Anıl, İ. (2021). Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396
AMA Karademir M, Anıl İ. Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma. ASÜ İİBF Dergisi. Eylül 2021;13(3):1-16. doi:10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396
Chicago Karademir, Metin, ve İbrahim Anıl. “Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye Ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma”. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 13, sy. 3 (Eylül 2021): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396.
EndNote Karademir M, Anıl İ (01 Eylül 2021) Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 13 3 1–16.
IEEE M. Karademir ve İ. Anıl, “Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma”, ASÜ İİBF Dergisi, c. 13, sy. 3, ss. 1–16, 2021, doi: 10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396.
ISNAD Karademir, Metin - Anıl, İbrahim. “Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye Ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma”. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 13/3 (Eylül 2021), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396.
JAMA Karademir M, Anıl İ. Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma. ASÜ İİBF Dergisi. 2021;13:1–16.
MLA Karademir, Metin ve İbrahim Anıl. “Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye Ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma”. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 13, sy. 3, 2021, ss. 1-16, doi:10.52791/aksarayiibd.912396.
Vancouver Karademir M, Anıl İ. Hibrid Örgütlerde Üye ve Örgütsel Dağılım Ekseninde Bir Araştırma. ASÜ İİBF Dergisi. 2021;13(3):1-16.
 Kapak Resmi İndir