Dijital Kültürde Sınırlı Rasyonalite: Yahoo’nun Taksonomisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital ekosistemde ilişkisellik ve algoritmik/yeniden-üretilebilirlik temelli dönüşümler karşısında mevcut yönelimlerini terk edemeyen lider bir örgütün entropik bir sürece nasıl sürüklendiğini, kuramsal bir çerçevede yürütülen vaka analiziyle inceler. Taksonomi-merkezli örgütsel yönelimiyle Yahoo, dijital ekosistemde lider konuma yükselmiş, ancak gene aynı nedenle bu konumunu kaybetmiştir. Çalışmanın kuramsal çerçevesi, sınırlı rasyonalite ve davranışsal firma kuramı ile bu gelenekle yakından ilişkili keşif–kullanım dengesi ve kusurlu çevresel eşleşme kavramları üzerine kuruludur. Bu çerçeve, örgütsel öğrenme kapasitesi çevresel dönüşümü bütüncül okuyamadığında, örgütün sistemik olarak dinamik bir dengeye geçiş yapamamasının nedenlerini açıklar. Bu doğrultuda, özgün bir vaka olarak Yahoo incelenmiştir. Yöntem, nitel ve özsel (intrinsic) tekil vaka analizine dayanmakta olup, istatistiksel genelleme yapmak yerine farklı bağlamlarda sınanabilir/aktarılabilir analitik içgörüler üretmeyi amaçlar. Yahoo’nun kurumsal kaynakları yerine analiz, Yahoo’yu çok sayıda referansa dayalı olarak tarihsel bağlamı ve çevresel dinamikleri içinde ele alan Gil Press’in (2016) Forbes makalesine dayanır; böylece vaka, tek taraflı kurumsal anlatılardan kaçınılarak dışsal bir perspektiften değerlendirilir. Bulgular, sınırlı rasyonalite nedeniyle rutin önceliğinin (bu vakada taksonomi-temelli bilgi düzenlerinin), keşif–kullanım dengesini kullanım lehine kaydırdığını, bunun da çevreyle giderek kusurlu bir eşleşmeye ve nihayetinde entropik bir çözülmeye yol açtığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, örgütlerin sürdürülebilirliği ile ilişkili olarak adaptif bir dinamik dengenin kurulabilmesi, örgütsel rasyonalitenin çevreyi riskleriyle birlikte keşfedilmesi gereken bir alan olarak ele alacak biçimde tasarlanmasını gerektirir.

Keywords

• Sınırlı rasyonalite
• davranışsal firma kuramı
• keşif–kullanım dengesi
• kusurlu çevresel eşleşme
• örgütsel öğrenme

Bounded Rationality in Digital Culture: Yahoo’s Taxonomy

Abstract

This study examines, through a case analysis conducted within a theoretical framework, how a leading organisation that fails to abandon its existing orientations in the face of transformations grounded in relationality and algorithmic reproducibility in the digital ecosystem is drawn into an entropic process. With its taxonomy-centred corporate orientation, Yahoo rose to a leading position in the digital ecosystem, but for the same reason it lost this position. The study’s theoretical framework is built on bounded rationality and the behavioural theory of the firm, together with exploration–exploitation balance and imperfect environmental matching, which are closely associated with this tradition. This framework explains the reasons why, when the organisational learning capacity cannot read environmental transformation holistically, the organisation cannot make a systemic transition to a dynamic equilibrium. Accordingly, Yahoo is examined as a distinctive case. The method rests on qualitative and intrinsic single-case analysis and aims to produce analytical insights that can be tested/transferred across different contexts rather than to make statistical generalisations. Instead of Yahoo’s corporate sources, the analysis relies on Gil Press’s (2016) published Forbes article, which draws on multiple references and situates Yahoo within its historical context and environmental dynamics; thus, the case is evaluated from an external perspective, avoiding one-sided corporate narratives. The findings show that due to bounded rationality, the priority of routines (in this case, taxonomy-based information orders) shifts the exploration–exploitation balance in favour of exploitation, which in turn leads to an increasingly imperfect match with the environment and, ultimately, to entropic dissolution. In conclusion, in relation to organisational sustainability, the establishment of an adaptive dynamic equilibrium requires designing organisational rationality to treat the environment as a domain to be explored, together with its risks.

Keywords

• Bounded rationality
• behavioural theory of the firm
• exploration–exploitation balance
• imperfect environmental matching
• organisational learning

References

1. Berners-Lee, T. (1990, May). Information management: A proposal. CERN. https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html google scholar
2. Coombs, H. (2022). Case study research: single or multiple [White paper]. Southern Utah University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.76 google scholar
3. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. (Original work published 1963). google scholar
4. Greve, H. R., & Zhang, C. M. (2022). Is there a strategic organization in the behavioral theory of the firm? Looking back and looking forward. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 698–708. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/7065 google scholar
5. Gupta, A. (2023, December 1). Yahoo!: The first king of the internet. Business History. https://businesshistory.domain-b.com/focus/yahoo%21-the-first-king-of-the-internet google scholar
6. Hagen, M., Su, W., & Junge, S. (2024). 60th birthday of “A behavioral theory of the firm”: A review of the relational concepts and recommendations for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 2637–2682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00369-x google scholar
7. Heslop, B. (2019, December 19). A brief history of digital transformation. Supply Chain Beyond. Retrieved October 31, 2025, from https://supplychainbeyond.com/a-brief-history-of-digital-transformation/">https://web.archive.org/web/20241213032023/https://supplychainbeyond.com/a-brief-history-of-digital-transformation/ [Original URL: https://supplychainbeyond.com/a-brief-history-of-digital-transformation/] google scholar
8. Hilbert, M. (2020). Digital technology and social change: The digital transformation of society from a historical perspective. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mhilbert google scholar

9. Katsh, E. (1993). Law in a digital world: Computer networks and cyberspace. Villanova Law Review, 38(2), 403–485. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol38/iss2/3 google scholar
10. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 google scholar
11. March, J. G. (2003). Understanding organisational adaptation. Society and Economy, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1556/SocEc.25.2003.1.1 google scholar
12. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. google scholar
13. Press, G. (2016, July 26). Why Yahoo lost and Google won. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2016/07/26/why-yahoo-lost-and-google-won/ google scholar
14. Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021). Organizational adaptation. Journal of Management, 47(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320929088 google scholar
15. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. B. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization (pp. 161–176). North-Holland. google scholar
16. Simon, H. A. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512227 google scholar
17. Team DigitalDefynd. (n.d.). Evolution of digital transformation: Past, present & future. DigitalDefynd. Retrieved May 17, 2025, from https://digitaldefynd.com/IQ/evolution-of-digital-transformation/ google scholar
18. Weick, K. E. (2019). Evolving reactions: 60 years with March and Simon’s Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 56(8), 1527–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12289 google scholar
19. Wheeler, G. (2024). Bounded rationality. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2024/entries/bounded-rationality/ google scholar