AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Cem Şen

doi:10.35379/cusosbil.661268

AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal sermayesini güçlendiren aktörlerin kurumsal mantıkların değişiminde rol sahibi olabileceklerini kavramsal olarak ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu bu bağlamda hangi konumdaki aktörün, merkezdeki mi yoksa periferideki mi, güçlü bağlara mı yoksa zayıf bağlara mı sahip olan ya da aracı konumundaki aktörün mü kurumsal mantıklarda değişimi daha etkin sağlayabileceği açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışma, aktör eylemliliği ve kurumsal belirlenimcilik arasındaki çelişkinin varlığına dikkat çekerek, inanç ve eylemleri kurumsal çevre tarafından şekillendirilen aktörlerin kurumsal mantıkları nasıl değiştirebileceği sorunsalından yola çıkılarak hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmada sosyal sermaye kavramına odaklanılarak, sosyal ağ ve ilişkilerle yaratılan sosyal sermaye bir kaynak olarak ele alınmıştır. Her ne kadar sosyal sermayenin ve sosyal iletişim ağlarının değerli bir servet olduğuna işaret edilse de, sosyal sermayenin nasıl oluşturulduğu noktasından hareketle, sosyal sermayenin aktörün bilinçli eylemliliği ile mi yoksa sosyal yapıda yerleşik ilişkiler ile mi yaratıldığı tartışılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, kurumsal mantıkları değiştirmede geniş bir yelpazeye hitap eden hem mikro hem de makro yaklaşımın nimetlerinden yararlanan sosyal ağ konumu ve kurulan bağların gerekliliğine vurgu yapılmıştır. Çünkü, sosyal sermayenin hem aktörün bilinçli eylemliliği ile hem de sosyal yapıda yerleşik ilişkiler ile yaratılabildiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

References

Adler, P.S. ve Kwon, S.W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40. Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals' social position. Organization, 13 (5), 653-676.
Battilana, J. (2007). Initiating divergent organizational change: The enabling role of actors’ social position, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings: 1-6.
Battilana, J., Leca, B. ve Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), 65-107.
Battilana, J. ve Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1419-1440.
Battilana, J. ve Casciaro, T. (2010). Power, social influence and organizational change: The role of network position in change implementation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-8.
Battilana, J. ve Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55 (2), 381-398.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, 241-258, New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. ve Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An invitation to reflective sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A Structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (4), 518-539. Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.
Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Staw, B.M. ve Sutton, R.I. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, 22, 345-423. New York: Elsevier Science.
Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349-399.
Burt, R.S. (2005). Brokerage and closure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cattani, G. ve Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19 (6), 824-844.
Cliff, J., Jennings, P.D. ve Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences and beliefs of founders who start imitative vs. innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (5), 633-663.
Cohen, W.M. ve Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160.
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. L. Zuker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture, 3-22, Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. W.W. Powell ve P.J. Dimaggio (Ed.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 63-82, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Emerson, R.M. (1972). Exchange theory, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Emirbayer, M. ve Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962-1023.
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Friedland, R. ve Alford, R.R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. W.W. Powell ve P.J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 232-263, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity, London: Hamish Hamilton.
Galaskiewicz, J. ve Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic and normative processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 454-479.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510. Greenwood, R. ve Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1022-1054.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. ve Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 58-80.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 27-48.
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619-652.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293-317.
Gulati, R., Dialdin D. A. ve Wang, L. (2002). Organizational networks. J.A.C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations, 281-303, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), 670-680.
Hasselbladh, H.ve Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: A critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21 (4), 697-720.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network Centrality, Power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471-501.
Jepperson, R.L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. W.W. Powell ve P.J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 143-164, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kraatz, M.S. ve Moore, J.H. (2002). Executive migration and institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 120-143.
Lawrence, T. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25 (2), 161-188.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785-795.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lockett, A., Currie, G., Finn, R., Martin, G. ve Waring, J. (2014). The influence of social position on sense making about organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (4), 1102-1129.
Luthans, F. ve Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 321-349.
Marin, A. ve Wellman, B. (2014). Social network analysis: An introduction. J. Scott ve P.J. Carrington (Ed.), Social network analysis, 11-25, California: Sage Publications.
Marsden, P.V. ve Friedkin, N.E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research, 22 (1), 127-151.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. ve Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
McPherson, C.M. ve Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58 (2), 165-196.
Meyer, J.W. ve Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363.
Meyer, J.W. ve Scott, W.R. (1983). Organizational environments-rituals and rationality, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Monge, P.R. ve Contractor, N.C. (2001). Emergences of communication networks. F.M. Jablin ve L.L. Putnam (Ed.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, 440-501, California: Sage Publications.
Nooteboom, B. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65 (1), 29-53.
Nahapiet, J. ve Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.
Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance on rules of CEO succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 384-416.
Podolny, J.M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. The American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1), 33-60.
Salancik, G.R. ve Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power- and how they hold on to it: A strategic- contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5 (3), 3-21.
Sargut, A.S. (2006). Sosyal sermaye: Yapının sunduğu bir olanak mı, yoksa bireyin amaçlı eylemi mi? Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, (12), 1-13.
Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. California: Sage Publications.
Scott, W.R. (2003). Institutional carriers: Reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (4), 879-894.
Seo, M. ve Creed, W.E.D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 222-247.
Sözen, H.C. ve Gürbüz, S. (2012). Örgütsel ağlar. H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Ed.), Örgüt kuramları, 301-325, Ankara: Beta Basım AŞ.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19 (1), 14-20.
Tang, F. ve Xi, Y. (2006). Exploring dynamic multi-level linkages in inter-organizational networks. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23, 187-208.
Thornton, P.H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81-101.
Thornton, P.H. ve 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, 801-843.
Thornton, P.H. ve Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby ve K. Sahlin (Ed.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 99-129, London: Sage.
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.
Tsai, W. ve Ghosal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 41 (4), 464-476.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interim networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 35-67.
Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64, 481-505.
Uzzi, B. ve Lancaster, R. (2004). Embeddedness and price formation in the corporate law market. American Sociological Review, 69, 319-344.
Zucker, L.G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Cem Şen ^*
0000-0002-7300-0170
Türkiye

Publication Date

October 26, 2020

Submission Date

December 18, 2019

Acceptance Date

May 7, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 29 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.661268

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA76AE95UD

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Şen, C. (2020). AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(3), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.661268

AMA

1.Şen C. AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2020;29(3):119-136. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.661268

Chicago

Şen, Cem. 2020. “AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 29 (3): 119-36. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.661268.

EndNote

Şen C (October 1, 2020) AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 29 3 119–136.

IEEE

[1]C. Şen, “AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 119–136, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.35379/cusosbil.661268.

ISNAD

Şen, Cem. “AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 29/3 (October 1, 2020): 119-136. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.661268.

JAMA

1.Şen C. AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2020;29:119–136.

MLA

Şen, Cem. “AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA”. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 29, no. 3, Oct. 2020, pp. 119-36, doi:10.35379/cusosbil.661268.

Vancouver

1.Cem Şen. AKTÖRÜN SOSYAL AĞDAKİ KONUMU VE SOSYAL SERMAYESİNİN KURUMSAL MANTIKLARIN DEĞİŞİMİNDEKİ ROLÜ: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2020 Oct. 1;29(3):119-36. doi:10.35379/cusosbil.661268