Yeni Kurumsal Kuram Bağlamında Hibrit Örgütlerde İşe Alım ve Sosyalizasyon Politikaları

Year 2021, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 7 - 29, 30.04.2021

Ömer Faruk Oktar , Binali Doğan

https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.851128

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Son yıllarda yeni kurumsal kuram kapsamında yapılan çalışmalarda aktörün pasif bir role sahip olmadığı aksine kurumları etkileme ve değiştirme gücüne sahip olduğu görüşü öne çıkmıştır. Bu görüş beraberinde kurumsal mantık literatürünü de getirmiştir. Çünkü kurumsal mantıklar aktörlerin davranışlarını meşrulaştıran ve aktörün gücünü aldığı zemin niteliğindedir. Farklı kurumsal mantıkların varlığı ise örgütlerin birden çok kurumsal mantığa yanıt vermesini gerekli kılmıştır. Hibrit örgütler de bu plüralistik yapıdaki kurumsal mantıklara bir yanıt niteliğinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada bir hibrit örgütlerde sürdürülebilirliğin nasıl sağlandığı, işe alım ve sosyalizasyon politikalarının nasıl oluşturulduğu ve bu süreçlerin nasıl işlediği keşfedilmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırma amacı doğrultusunda yeni kurumsal kuram ve hibrit örgütler, hibrit örgütlerde sürdürülebilirlik politikaları incelenmiş, ardından işe alım ve sosyalizasyon politikaları araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın temel amacı bir olguyu keşfetmek olduğu için nitel araştırma yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Veri toplama yöntemi olarak mülakat ve doküman analizi yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın birincil kaynağını yarı yapılandırılmış mülakat formları ile yapılan görüşmeler; ikincil kaynağını ise örgütlerin faaliyet raporları, bilançoları ve diğer çeşitli dokümanlar oluşturmaktadır. Elde edilen veriler MAXQDA 2020 ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda ilgili literatürde de vurgulandığı gibi işe alım ve sosyalizasyon politikalarının sürdürülebilirliği sağlama hususunda en kritik unsurlar olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak işe alım ve sosyalizasyon politikalarının niteliğine göre eğitim ve iş yapış biçimlerinin de farklılaştığı gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

Kurumsal Kuram, Hibrid Örgütler, İşe Alım Politikaları, Sosyalizasyon Politikaları

Hiring and Socialization Policies in Hybrid Organizations in the Context of New Institutional Theory

Abstract

In recent studies on the new institutional theory, it has been started to think that the actor does not have a passive role. The view that the actor has the power to influence and change institutions has started to prevail. This view has brought the institutional logic literature with it. Institutional logics are the grounds which legitimize the actors' behavior and on which the actors take their power. The existence of different institutional logics made it necessary for organizations to respond to more than one institutional logic. Hybrid organizations emerged as a response to pluralistic institutional logics. In this study, it has been tried to discover how sustainability is achieved in hybrid organizations, how hiring and socialization policies are formed and how these processes work in these types of hybrid organizations. In this research, the new institutional theory, hybrid organizations and sustainability policies in hybrid organizations were investigated. Since the main purpose of this study is to discover a phenomenon, qualitative research method has been preferred. Interviews and document analysis methods were used as data collection methods. Interviews constitute the primary data source of the research. The secondary data source of the research is the documents. The data obtained have been analyzed with MAXQDA 2020. According to the research findings, it has been determined that hiring and socialization policies are the most critical factors in ensuring sustainability. Finally, it has been observed that training and business practices differ according to the nature of hiring and socialization policies.

Keywords

Institutional Theory, Hybrid Organizations, Hiring Policies, Socialization Policies

References

• Alexius, S., & Grossi, G. (2018). Decoupling in the age of market-embedded morality: responsible gambling in a hybrid organization. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(2), 285-313.
• Alter, K. (2007), Social Enterprise Typology, Virtue Ventures LLC.
• Bargues, E. (2012). Facing institutional heterogeneity through socialization tactics and organizational identity; the case of new comers in hybrid organizations, 28th colloquium EGOS, Helsinki, Finlande, July 5-7.
• Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
• Battilana, J., Pache, A., Sengul, M., & Model, J. (2011). Combining social and economic objectives: On the challenges of sustaining a hybrid organizational form (Working paper ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2012). Multiple logics within organizations: An integrative framework and model of organizational hybridity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University working paper.
• Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. İçinde R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andresson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 840. London: Sage.
• Bruneel, J., Moray, N., Stevens, R., & Fassin, Y. (2016). Balancing competing logics in for-profit social enterprises: A need for hybrid governance. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 263-288.
• Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. (2015). State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29, 92–114.
• Can, H. (1999). Organizasyon ve Yönetim, Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2004). Globalization and institutions: Redefining the rule of the economic game. Northampton, M.A.: Edward Elgar.
• Friedland, R. ve Alford, R.R. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions, İçinde W.W. Powell-P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: Chicago: University of Chicago Press 232-263.
• Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critic's corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5): 1031-1055.
• 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.
• Grossi, G., Papenfuß, P., & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). Corporate governance and accountability of stateowned enterprises. Relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 274–285.
• Haigh, N. ve Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The Next Chapter of Sustainable Business. Organizational Dynamics, 41 (2): 126-134.
• Hoffman, A. J., Badiane, K. K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit & non-profit divide. Using a positive lens to explore social change and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation, 131.
• Im, J., & Sun: L. (2015). Profits and outreach to the poor: The institutional logics of microfinance institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 95-117.
• Jay, J. (2012). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137-159.
• Knutsson, H. & Thomasson, A. (2017). Exploring organisational hybridity from a learning perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 14(4), 430-447.
• Kraatz,M., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. içinde R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Ed.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 243–275. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• McMullin, C., & Skelcher, C. (2018). The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 911-924.
• Mikolajczak, P. (2020). Social Enterprises’ Hybridity in the Concept of Institutional Logics: Evidence from Polish NGOs. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-12.
• Nielsen, J. G., Lueg, R., & Liempd, D. V. (2019). Managing Multiple Logics: The Role of Performance Measurement Systems in Social Enterprises. Sustainability, 11(8), 2327.
• Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010). Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton's health care reform initiative. Organization Science, 21(4), 823-841.
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), 145-179.
• Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of management review, 35(3), 455-476.
• Pache, A.C., & Santos F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling As a Response to Competing Institutional Logics, Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
• Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629-652.
• Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spedale S & Watson TJ. (2014). The emergence of entrepreneurial action: At the crossroads between institutional logics and individual life-orientation. International Small Business Journal 32(7): 759-776.
• Stazyk, E. C. Moldavanova, A. & Frederickson, H. G. (2016). Sustainability, Intergenerational Social Equity, and the Socially Responsible Organization, Administration & Society 2016, 48(6), 655-682.
• Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional Logics. içinde R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andresson (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 840. London: Sage.
• Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. 2005. Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. içinde C. Jones & P. H. Thornton (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, (23), 125-170. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. ve Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford. Oxford University Press.
• Trones, M. (2015). Hybrid Organisations: Defining Characteristics And Key Factors for Organizational Sustainability A Qualitative Study From Latin America, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
• Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to Work. içinde R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of Work, Organization and Society (67-130). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Co.
• Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
• Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Spedale, S., & Watson, TJ. (2014). The emergence of entrepreneurial action: At the crossroads between institutional logics and individual life-orientation. International Small Business Journal 32(7): 759-776.