Biçimsel ve Biçimsel Olmayan Örgüt Yapılarının Sosyal Ağ Analizi: Öneri ve Güven Ağları Örneği

Year 2019, Volume: 34 Issue: 4, 1121 - 1142, 31.10.2019

Zeynep Eren

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı bir eğitim örgütünde öneri isteme ve güven ağlarını ortaya çıkararak biçimsel yapı ile biçimsel olmayan yapının karşılaştırılmasını ve ağ içindeki atanmış liderlerin sosyal ağ içindeki konumlarını, ağ içindeki bölünmeleri ve doğal liderleri açığa çıkarmaktır. Tarama modelindeki bu çalışma, sosyal ağ analizi yaklaşımı ile 2014-2015 döneminde Türkiye’de bir yükseköğretim kurumunda yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada analize esas veriler kurumun web sitesinden ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniği ile toplanmıştır. Örgütün web sitesinden ve 41 katılımcıdan toplanan veriler Sosyal Ağ Analizi için kullanılan yazılım programı olan UCINET 6.0 ile analiz edilmiş ve ağ ilişkileri grafikle görsel olarak ortaya konmuştur. Araştırma bulgularına göre, biçimsel yapıda 41 aktör arasında 102 bağlantı; biçimsel olmayan yapıda 46 aktör ve 424 bağlantı tespit edilmiştir. Atanmış yöneticilerden sadece dördü ağ içinde aynı zamanda doğal liderdir. Ağ içinde en küçüğü 3 kişilik olan toplam 45 klik bulunmuştur.

Keywords

biçimsel ve biçimsel olmayan örgüt, örgütsel yapı, liderlik, ağ, karmaşık örgüt, öneri ağı, sosyal ağ analizi

Formal and Informal Organization Structure’ Social Network Analysis: An Example of Advice and Trust Networks

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to put forward the advice asking networks in an educational organization, compare the formal structure and the informal structure, identify the position of appointed leaders in the network within the social network, the divisions within the network and the informal leaders. This study which is of survey model has been conducted at a higher-education organization in Turkey during the 2014-2015 academic year through the social network analysis approach. In the study, the main data of the analysis has been collected from the web site of the organization and through the semi-structured interview method. Data collected from 41 participants has been analyzed with UCINET 6.0 and presented visually in the graphics. According to the findings of the study, in the formal structure 41 actors and 102 connections, and in the informal structure 46 actors and 424 connections have been identified. The findings revealed that only 4 of the appointed administrators are informal leaders as well within the network. A total of 45 cliques have been identified within the network, the smallest one consisting of 3.

Keywords

formal and informal organization, organizational structure, leadership, network, advice networks, social network analysis

References

• Aydın, M. (2007). Eğitim yönetimi. (8. baskı). Ankara: Hatipoğlu Yayınları.
• Baker, H. K. (1981). Tapping into the power of informal groups. Supervisory Management, 26, 2, 18‒25.
• Balcı, A. (2005). Açıklamalı eğitim yönetimi terimleri sözlüğü. (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Barabasi, A.L. (2010). Bağlantılar. İstanbul: Optimist Yayınları
• Barnes, J. (1954). Class and commities in Norwegian island parish. Human Relations. 7, 39‒58.
• Bess, K. D.; Paul W. Speer, P.W. &. Perkins, D.D. (2012). Ecological contexts in the development of coalitions for youth violence prevention: An organizational network analysis. Health Education & Behavior, 39, 5, 526‒537.
• Borgatti, S.P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization, Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.
• Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.B. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management. 29, 6, 991‒1013.
• Borgatti, S.P.; Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L. (2002). UCINET for windows, version 6.59: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
• Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1994). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış. (9. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Castells, M. (2008). Ağ toplumunun yükselişi, enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
• Chiristakis, N.A. ve Fowler, J.H. (2012). Sosyal ağların şaşırtıcı gücü ve yaşantımızı biçimlendiren etkisi. İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları.
• Cobb, A. T. (1986). Informal influence in the formal organization: psychological and situational correlates. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 3, 229‒253.
• Coleman, J. S. (1961). Adolescent society. NY: Free Press.
• Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27, 4, 569‒584.
• Cross, R. & Cummings, J.N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 6, 928‒937.
• Cross, J.E.; Dickman, E.; Newman-Gonchar, R. & Fagan, J. M. (2009). Using mixed-method design and network analysis to measure development of interagency collaboration. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 310‒329.
• Cross, R. ve Parker, A. (2004). Sosyal şebekelerin saklı gücü. İstanbul: Henkel Yayıncılık.
• Cummings, J. N. & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 3, 197‒210.
• Emirbayer, M. & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, problem of agency. The American Journal of Sogiology, 99, 6, 1411‒1454.
• Everett, M. & Borgatti, S. (2005). Extending centrality. In P.J. Carrington, J. Scott and S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 57‒76). New York: Cambridge University Pres.
• Farris, G. F. (1979). The informal organization in strategy decision-making. International Studies of Management & Organization, 9, 4, 37‒62.
• Forsyth, D.R. (2006). Group dynamics. (4th. ed.) Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
• Freeman, L.C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the socıology of scıence. Vancouver: ΣP Empirical Press.
• Galbraith JR. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces 4, 3, 28‒36.
• Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W.D. (2004). Governing by network: the new shape of the public sector. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• Han, P. E. (1983). The informal organization you've got to live with. Supervisory Management, 28, 10, 25‒28.
• Hanneman, R. (1987). Computer-assisted theory building. CA: Sage Publish.
• Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 3, 232‒248.
• Hannan, M.T. & Fremann, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 2, 5, 929‒964.
• Hatch, M.J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. N.Y: Oxford University Press.
• Hunter, D. S. (2015). Combining theoretical perspectives on the organizational structure performance relationship. Journal of Organization Design, 4, 2, 24‒37.
• Jensen, H. S. (1995). Paradigms of the theory-building in business studies. In T. J. Elfring, Hans Siggaard; Money, Arthur (Eds.), European research paradigms in business studies (pp. 13-28). Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens forlag.
• Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71, 4, 104‒113.
• Krackhardt D. (1994). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. Computational Organization Theory, 89, 112, 123‒140.
• Kilduff, M. & Tsai, W. (2007) Social networks and organizations. London: SAGE Publications.
• Köker, A.R. (2008). Örgütlerarası ağların yenilik derecesi üzerindeki etkileri: OSTİM ve Ankara organize sanayi bölgesinde uygulama. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Knoke, D. & Kublinski, J.H. (1982). Network analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Marion, R. (2008). Complexity theory for organization and organizational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Conceptual foundations (pp. 1‒15). Charlotte, NC: IAP – Information Age Publishing Inc.
• Marsden, P.V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement models and methods in social network analysis. In P.J. Carrington, J. Scott & S. Wasserman. Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8‒30). New York: Cambridge University Pres.
• Mehra, A,; Dixon, A.L.; Brass, D.J. & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17, 1, 64–79.
• Mintzberg, H. (2014). Örgütler ve yapıları. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N.S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In Frederic M. Jablin & Linda L. Putnam (Eds), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. (pp. 440‒502). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Nooy, W.D. Mrvar, A. & Batagelj, W. (2005). Exploratory network analysis with Pajek. NY: Harvard University Press.
• Öğütveren, Ö. (2007) Örgütsel güvenin ağ düzenekleri içindeki analizi: Küçük işletmelerde bir uygulama. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Özkan-Canbolat, E. (2008) Örgütsel ağ düzeneğinin örgütsel alandaki çeşitlilik ve değişime etkisi: Çankırı örneği. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Öztaş, N. ve Acar, M. (2004). Ağbağ analizine giriş: Kavramlar ve yöntemler. İçinde M. Acar ve H. Özgür. (Eds.), Çağdaş kamu yönetimi II. (s.s. 288‒316). Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
• Öztaş, N. (2007). Sosyal sermayenin ağbağ kuramları: Dayanışmacı ve aracı sosyal sermaye. Ankara: Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40, 3, 79‒98.
• Reagans, R.; Zuckerman, E. & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 1, 101-133.
• Robbins, S. ve Judge, T.A. (2012). Örgütsel davranış. İstanbul: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Sanders, K., Snijders, T., & Stokman, F. N. (1998). Effects and outcomes of informal relations within organizations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory,4, 2, 103‒108.
• Sarkar, A.; Feinberg, S.E. & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Predicting profitability using advice branch bank networks. Statistical Methodology, 7, 3, 429-444.
• Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage
• Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday‒Currency.
• Shaw J.D.; Duffy M. K.; Johnson, J. L. & Lockhart D.E. (2005). Turnover, social capital losses, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 4, 594‒606.
• Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior ( 3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
• Soda, G. & Zaheer, A. (2012). A network perspective on organizational architecture: Performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 6, 751-771.
• Sözen, H.C. (2007). Bağlam kapsamında örgütler arası ağ düzenekleri: Dayanıklı ev aletleri sektörü örneği. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Sözen, C.H. (2012) Örgütsel ağlar. İçinde H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Eds.), Örgüt kuramları. (s.s. 301‒326). İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Sözen, Ş. ve Aslan. Z. (2006). İçsel ve dışsal sosyal sermaye yaklaşımları açısından Türk toplumunun sosyal sermaye potansiyeli: Ortadoğu Sanayi ve Ticaret Merkezi (OSTİM) örneği. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 12, 130‒161.
• Sparrowe, R. T; Liden, R. C.; Wayne, S. J. & Kraimer M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 316‒325.
• Tichy, N. & Tushman, M. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 4, 507‒519.
• Tichy N. M.; Tushman, M. L. & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4, 4, 507‒519.
• Uğurlu, Z. (2016a). The effect of the position of educational organizations within the social network on their collaboration levels. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4,12A, 226‒254.
• Ugurlu, Z. (2016b). Social network analysis of Farabi exchange program: Student mobility. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 65, 313‒334.
• Waldstrom, C. (2001). Informal networks in organizations: A literature review (DDL Working Paper No. 2). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences.
• Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.