ÖRGÜTSEL MEŞRUİYET: ÇOK BOYUTLU BİR OLGUNUN KAVRAMSAL BAĞLAMDA DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Year 2020, , 101 - 114, 22.06.2020

Volkan Yüncü

https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.686095

Abstract

Son derece önemli,
fakat çok katmanlı yapısı nedeniyle çoğu zaman kafa karıştırıcı bir kavram olan
örgütsel meşruiyet, sosyoloji ve siyaset biliminin yanı sıra, yönetim ve örgüt
alanlarında da büyük ilgi görmüştür. Bu kapsamlı literatür incelemesinde
araştırmacıların karşılaştığı kavramsal güçlüklerin bir resmini çekerek ve
temel tipolojilerde önerilen meşruiyetin çeşitli boyutları arasındaki
farklılıkları ve yakınsamaları ortaya çıkararak kavramı yönetim ve örgüt alanında
tartışıyorum. Bu noktada, söz konusu kavramsal güçlükleri kavramla ilgili
çalışma sayısındaki artışla doğru orantılı olarak inceleyen bu sistematik
literatür incelemesi, her disiplinin ve paradigmanın meşruiyet kavramını kendi
bağlamsal unsurlarıyla ele aldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, meşruiyetin
mevcut tipolojileri ve boyutlarının kaçınılmaz olarak bazı açılardan örtüştüğü
görülürken, bazı noktalarda birbirlerinden önemli ölçüde farklılaştığı
görülmüştür. Bu durumda kavram henüz geniş bir kavramsal konsensüsten yoksundur
ve farklı kuramsal bağlamların katkılarıyla kapsayıcı bir çerçeve oluşturmak
için daha bütüncül araştırmalar yapılması gerekmektedir.

Keywords

Örgütsel Meşruiyet, Meşruiyet, Meşrulaştırma, Kurumsal Kuram, Örgüt Kuramı

ORGANIZATIONAL LEGITIMACY: EVALUATING THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PHENOMENON

Abstract

As
a fundamental, yet often a confusing concept due to its multilevel
structure,  organizational legitimacy has
attracted great attention in management and organization research as well as sociology
and political science. In this comprehensive review, I discuss the concept
within the former scope by taking a picture of the accrued conceptual challenges
faced by researchers and by revealing the divergences and convergences among
several dimensions of legitimacy suggested in essential typologies. Herein,
this systematic literature review investigating these conceptual challenges in
direct proportion to the increase in the number of studies indicates that each
discipline and paradigm embraces the concept through its own contextual
elements. As a result, whereas current typologies and dimensions of legitimacy
are found to be overlapping in some respects, they are also observed to differ
significantly from one another in some other aspects. Accordingly, the concept
still lacks a broad conceptual consensus and more integrative future research
is required to construct an overarching framework with the contributions of
different theoretical contexts.

Keywords

Organizational Legitimacy, Legitimacy, Legitimation, Institutional Theory, Organization Theory

References

• Aldrich, H., & C. M. Fiol, (1994). Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation, Academy of Management Review 19 (4): 645–670, https://doi.org/10.2307/258740
• Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2001). Learning from successful local private firms in China: Establishing legitimacy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 72–83, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165787
• Ashforth, B.E., & Gibbs, B.W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1,177-194, http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
• Archibald. M., (2004). Between isomorphism and market partitioning: How organizational competencies and resources foster cultural and sociopolitical legitimacy, and promote organizational survival, in Cathryn Johnson (ed.) Legitimacy Processes in Organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 22) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.171 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(04)22006-7
• Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal 47: 93-103, https://doi.org/10.5465/20159562
• Baum, J. A. C, & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 187-218.
• Berger Peter L. & Luckmann Thomas (1967). The Social Construction of Reality; a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth (Original: Doubleday. Garden City, N. Y. 1966), https://doi.org/10.2307/3710424
• Bitektine, Alex. (2011). Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status. Academy of Management Review. 36. 151-179, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0382
• Deephouse, David. (1996). ‘Does isomorphism legitimate?’ Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1024–1039, https://doi.org/10.2307/256722
• Deephouse, D. (1999). To Be Different, or to Be the Same? It's a Question (And Theory) of Strategic Balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147-166. Retrieved April 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/3094023
• Deephouse, D. L. and Carter, S. M., (2005). An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation (March 1, 2004). Journal of Management Studies, Vol 42, No. 2, ; University of Alberta School of Business Research Paper No. 2013-407. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2268774
• Deephouse, D. & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. GreenwoodC. Oliver & R. Suddaby The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49-77). London: SAGE Publications Ltd., http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n2
• Deephouse, D., Bundy, J., Tost, L. & Suchman, M. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: six key questions. In R. GreenwoodC. Oliver & T. B. Lawrence The SAGE Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 27-52). 55 City Road, London: SAGE Publications Ltd., http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n2
• DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160., https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Díez-de-Castro E., Peris-Ortiz M., Díez-Martín F. (2018) Criteria for Evaluating the Organizational Legitimacy: A Typology for Legitimacy Jungle. In: Díez-De-Castro E., Peris-Ortiz M. (eds) Organizational Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75990-6_1

• Dornbusch, S. D., & Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Dowling, G. R. (1994). Corporate reputation. Longman Publishing. New York.
• Dowling, J. & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior Pacific Sociological Review. 18: 122-136, https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226
• Drori, I., & Honig, B. (2013(. A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3): 345-376,https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612467153
• Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 57-88., http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393494
• Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635., https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493
• Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1986. Where do organizational forms come from? Sociological Forum, 1: 50-72., https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01115073
• Hybels, R. C. (1994), Legitimation, population density, and founding rates: the institutionalization of commercial biotechnology in the US, 1971-1989, Cornell University.
• Hybels, R. C. (1995). On legitimacy, legitimation and organizations: A critical review and integrative theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal (Special Volume), 241–256, https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1995.17536509
• Johnson. C., (2004). Introduction: Legitimacy Process in Organization, in Cathryn Johnson (ed.) Legitimacy Processes in Organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 22) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.1 – 24, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(04)22010-9
• Johnson, C., Timothy J. Dowd, Cecilia L. Ridgeway. (2006). Legitimacy as a Social Process. Annual Review of Sociology 32:1, 53-78, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123101
• Kalemci A, Kalemci Tüzün İ. (2008). Örgütsel alanda Meşruiyet Kavramının Açılımı: Kurumsal ve Stratejik Meşruiyet. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2):403-413.
• King, B. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3), 192–207.
• Kostova, T. & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81., https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1580441
• Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects. The Academy of Management Journal,45(1), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069293
• Lamertz, K., & Baum, J. A. C. (1998). The legitimacy of organizational downsizing in Canada: An analysis of explanatory media accounts. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15(1): 93-107., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1998.tb00154.x
• Massey, J.E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: communication strategies for organizations in crisis, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 153-183.
• Maurer, J.G. (1971). Readings in Organization Theory: Open- System Approaches. New York Random House.
• Mazza, C. (1999). Claim, intent, and persuasion: Organizational legitimacy and the rhetoric of corporate mission statements. Boston: Kluwer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5061-7
• Meyer, J. W. & Scott, W. R. (1983). Organizational Environments. Ritual and Rationality. BeverlyHills: Sage., https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.4050030417
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 41-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179., https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
• Ossewaarde, R., Nijhof, A., & Heyse, L. (2008). Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: How organising betrays core missions of INGOs. Public Administration and Development, 28, 42–53., https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.472
• Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly,1(1), 63-85., https://doi.org/10.2307/2390840
• Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Patterson, K. D. W. & Cavazos, D. E. & Washington, M. (2014). It does matter how you get to the top: Differentiating status from reputation. Administrative Sciences, 4(June), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci4020073
• Pfeffer, J. (1981) Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organisational Paradigms. In: Cummings, B.S.L., Ed., Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, CT JAI Press, Greenwich, 1-52.
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
• Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status Signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 631-642., https://doi.org/10.2307/30040654
• Revilla-Camacho, María-Ángeles & Cossío-Silva, Francisco-José & Mercado-Idoeta, Carmelo. (2018). Neuromarketing as a Subject of Legitimacy., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75990-6_7
• Ruef, M., & Scott, W.R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments: Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 877–904., https://doi.org/10.2307/2393619
• Sauder, M., Lynn, F., & Podolny, J. M. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 267–283.
• Scott, W.R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. UpperRiver, NJ: Prentic
• Scholte JA. (2004). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition 39(2): 211–233, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00121.x
• Singh, J.V., Tucker, D.J. & House, R.J. (1986) Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171-193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392787
• Suchman, Mark C. (1988), "Constructing an Institutional Ecology: Notes on the Structural Dynamics of Organizational Communities," presented to the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Atlanta, Georgia
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 571- 610., https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
• Suddaby, Roy, Alex Bitektine and Patrick Haack. (2017). “Legitimacy.” Academy of Management Annals 11: 451–78, https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0101
• Stinchcombe, Arthur L. (1968). Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Thompson, James (1967.) Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hil
• Treviño, L. K. & den Nieuwenboer, N. A. & Kreiner, G. E., & Bishop, D. G. (2014). Legitimating the legitimate: A grounded theory study of legitimacy work among ethics and compliance officers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 186–205., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.009
• Tost, L. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0227
• Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4),323–345., https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4

• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400., https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
• Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
• Yüncü, V. & Koparal, C. 2017. "Fundamental Paradigms for Corporate Reputation," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 2, pages 60-65
• Yüncü, V., & Paşaoğlu Baş, D., & Fidan,Ü. (2017). "Deception or Illusion ?," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 1, pages 5-11.
• Yüncü, V., Koparal, C. (2019). Is Cultural Environment a Determinant of Perceived Corporate Reputation?, Journal of Business Research- Turk, 11 (2), 1044-1056. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2019.654
• Weber, M. (1946 [1922]). ‘Class, status, party.’ Pp. 180–95 in From Max Weber Essays in Sociology, ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414., https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.7389921