AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON THE RECONCEPTUALİZATİON OF INCLUSİVİTY AS A MANAGEMENT PRACTİCE İN THE TURKİSH INSTİTUTİONAL CONTEXT

Abstract

In this study, the concept of inclusivity, which originated in the European context, is evaluated through the lens of the translation approach, with the aim of discovering the dimensions of inclusivity specific to the Turkish context. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals actively engaged in the workforce. The concept of inclusivity is examined on three levels: general perception of inclusivity, inclusivity at the organizational level, and inclusivity among colleagues. Using a phenomenological design, one of the qualitative research methods, inclusivity is analyzed based on participants’ experiences. According to the study’s findings, inclusivity is defined through dimensions of ignoring differences, high similarity, acceptance/rejection, and respect. At the organizational level, inclusivity is perceived through the inclusion of diversity, meritocracy, participation in decision-making processes, and openness to ideas and suggestions. Inclusivity among colleagues is reflected in cooperation and solidarity, communication within the group, and socialization. These findings support the institutional perspective, which argues that management knowledge and practices are not universal but are restructured according to the specific contexts in which they are transferred. Therefore, the discovery of Turkey-specific inclusivity dimensions in this study demonstrates that management practices vary contextually and are reshaped based on the unique cultural and institutional dynamics of each country.

Keywords

• Inclusivity
• Dimension of Inclusivity
• Perception of Inclusivity
• Rational Perspective
• Institutional Perspective

References

1. Ansarı, S., Reınecke, J. & Spaan, A. (2014). How are Practices Made to Vary? Managing Practice Adaptation in a Multinational Corporation, Organization Studies, Vol. 35(9), 1313–1341.
2. Bakıcı, C., & Aydın, E. (2020). Türkiye’de Kadın Çalışanların İş Yaşam Dengesini Şekillendirmede Ataerkilliğin Rolü, Economics, Business and Organization Research, 2(2), pp. 82-98
3. Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel Araştırma Süreci: Nitel Bir Araştırma Nasıl Yapılır?. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388.
4. Beydili E., Yıldırım, B., & Demiröz, F. (2013). Sosyal Hizmet Perspektifinden Feminizm Üzerine Bir Gözden Geçirme: Kadın Çalışmalarında Erkek İşbirligği. Kadın Sorunları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi, Aile ve Kadın Sempozyumunda Sunulan Bildiri, Kırıkkale, Türkiye.
5. Boxenbaum, E. & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). “Scandinavian institutionalism – a case of institutional work”, In: Thomas B. Lawrence et al. (eds.) Institutional Work, pp. 178-204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Boxenbaum, E. (2006). Lost in Translation: The Making of Danish Diversity Management. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 939–948.
7. Boxenbaum, E., & Battilana, J. (2005). Importation as Innovation: Transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 355–383.
8. Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, s:475–482.

9. Creswell, J., W. (2021). “ Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri Beş Yaklaşıma Göre Nitel Araştırma ve Araştırma Deseni”, Üçüncü Baskıdan Çeviri, Siyasal Kitapevi, Ankara.
10. Czarniawska B. & Joerges B. (1996). “Travels of Ideas” in: Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G.(eds.), Translating Organizational Change, New Work: Walter de Gruyter. ss:13-48.
11. Dedeoğlu, S. (2009). Eşitlik mi Ayrımcılık mı? Türkiye’de Sosyal Devlet, Cinsiyet Eşitliği Politikaları ve Kadın İstihdamı, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2(21), 41-54.
12. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative İnquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
13. Dirlik, S. (2023). “Türkiye’deki Yönetim ve Örgüt Araştırmalarında Bağlam, Yöntem ve Yaklaşım: 2000- 2014 Dönemi Üzerine Bir Derleme” der: Şükrü ÖZEN, Serkan DİRLİK, “ Yönetim ve Örgüt Araştırmalarında Toplumsal Bağlam”, İmge Kitapevi, Ankara.
14. Edwards, T., & Rees, C. (2006). Institutional Theory and the Cross-National Transfer of Employment Practices: The Case of Japanese Multinationals. Journal of Management, 32(1), 78-97.
15. Gooderham, P., Nordhaug, N. O., & Ringdal, K. (1999). Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Resource Management in European Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 507-531.
16. Heres, L., & Benschop, Y. (2010). Taming diversity: an exploratory study on the travel of a management fashion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29 (5), 436-457.
17. Jones, D., Pringle, J., & Shepherd, D. (2000). Managing diversity’’ meets Aotearoa/New Zealand. Personnel Review, 29(3), 364-380.
18. Kipping, M., & Engwall, L. (2002). The Spread of Management Knowledge: Tracing the Discursive Formation of ‘Flexible Production’ and the Lean Enterprise. Organization Studies, 23(4), 531-559.
19. Klarsfeld, A. (2009). The diffusion of diversity management: The case of France. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 363-373.
20. Kochan T., Bezrukova K., Robin E., Jackson S., Jashi A., Jehn K., Leonard J., Levine D., & Thomas D. (2003). The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report of The Dİversity Research Network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3-21.
21. Kostova, T. & Zaheer, S. (1999). “Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise”, The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
22. Kutanis, R.Ö., & Ulu, S. (2016). İşgücü Piyasalarında Ayrımcılığın Kaynakları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35, 359-372.
23. Lam, A. (1997). “Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge: Problems of Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in Global Cooperative Ventures”, Organization Studies, 18(6), 973-996.
24. Lorbiecki, A., & Jack, G. (2000). Critical Turns in the evolution of diversity management. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 17–31.
25. Meyer, W. J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
26. Miller, F.A. (1998). Strategic Culture Change: The Door To Achieving High Performance and IInclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), 151-160.
27. Mor-Barak, E. M., & Cherin, A. D. (1998). A Tool to Expand Organizational Understanding of Workforce Diversity. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47-64.
28. Omonovic, V. (2009). Diversity and its management as a dialectical process: Encountering Sweden and the U.S.”, Special Issue on “Diversity Management”: Translation? Travel. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 352–362.
29. Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23- 39.
30. Özen Ş., (2007). “Yeni Kurumsal Kuram: Örgütleri Çözümlemede Yeni Ufuklar Yeni Sorunlar”, A. Selami Sargut ve Şükrü Özen (Der). Örgüt Kuramları, İmge Kitapevi, Ankara.
31. Pelled L.H., Ledford G.E., & Mohrman S.A. (1999). Demographic Dissimilarity and Workplace İnclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1013-1031.
32. Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2002). The Rise and Fall of Rationales for Corporate Downsizing. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(12), 1639-1657.
33. Risberg, A., & Soderberg, A. (2008). Translating a management concept: diversity management in Denmark. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23(6), 426– 441.
34. Roberson, Q.M. (2006). Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and İnclusion in Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212-236.
35. Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. in Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 218-242.
36. Saldana, J. (2019). “Nitel Araştırmacılar İçin Kodlama El Kitabı”, 3. Baskıdan Çeviri, Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
37. Sanders WM., G. & Tuschke A. (2007). “The Adoptıon Of Instıtutıonally Contested Organızatıonal Practıces: The Emergence Of Stock Optıon Pay In Germany”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 33–56.
38. Schram, T. A. (2003). Conceptualizing Qualitative Inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
39. Shore, M. L., Randel, E. A., Chung, G. B., Dean, A. M., Erhart, H. K., & Singh, G. (2011). İnclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.
40. Sturdy, A. (2001). “The Global Diffusion of Customer Service: A Critique of Cultural and Institutional Perspectives, Asia Paific Business View, 7(3), 75-89.
41. Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices, Theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Management Learning, 35(2), 155-179.
42. Sturdy, A., Wright, C., & Wylie, N. (2009). The Spread of Management Knowledge: Deconstructing the Role of Professional Intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 31-45.
43. Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12), 2435–2453.
44. Tajfel, H. (1978).“ The achievement of group differentiation.” Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. (Der.) H. Tajfel. London: Academic Press. 77-101.
45. Tang, N., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Zhou, Z., Chen, C.C., & Yu, Z. (2015). İnclusion and İnclusion Managemet in the Chinese Context: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 856- 874.
46. Tayeb, M. (1998). “Transfer of HRM Practices Across Cultures: An American Company in Scotland”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(2), 332-358.
47. Tekindal, M. & Uğuz Arsu, Ş. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak fenomenolojik yaklaşımın kapsamı ve sürecine yönelik bir derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 20 (1), 153- 182.
48. Terzioğlu, F., & Taşkın, L. (2008). Kadın ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rolünün Liderlik Davranışlarına ve Hemşirelik Mesleğine Yansımaları. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 12(2), 62-67.
49. Turner, J. C. (1982). “Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group”. Social identity and intergroup relations. (Der.) H. Tajfel. London: Harvester Wheath Sheaf. 2-48.
50. Wasti, S. A. (1998). “Cultural barriers in the transferability of Japanese and American human resources practices to developing countries: The Turkish case”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9 (4),.608-631.
51. Wilson, A. (2015). A guide to phenomenological research. Nursing Standard, 29(34), 38-43.
52. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). “Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri”, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara.
53. Yıldırımalp, S. (2021). Ayrımcılık Temelli Dışlanma: Türkiye’de Çalışma Hayatında Kadınlar. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi, 11(2), 321-346.
54. Yıldız, S.(2014). Türkiye’de Cam Tavan Sendromunun Varlığı Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1),72-90.
55. Zavalsız Ş. & Ateş H. (2021). Modernite ve Gelenekler Arasında Evli ve Çalışan Kadının Yaşamı: Türkiye Örneğinde Ampirik Bir İnceleme. Journal of Civilization Studies, 6(2), 87-99.