Organizational Configuration in Turkish Theatre Industry: The Effects of Politics and Institutional Logics

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 25 - 44, 08.12.2022

Özge Can

https://doi.org/10.57082/mpsr.1113579

Abstract

As a significant theoretical framework in organization research, institutional logics show how organizational fields are shaped by competing meaning systems whose potentially decomposable components can be used by organizational actors as vehicles for identity building, combination and conversion. This paper presents a historical research of institutional logics and an exploratory analysis for locating organizations in a creative industry; Turkish theatre. Integrating institutional logics research with configurations perspective, I intend to contribute to the understanding of how organizations are related in an industry under strong influence of institutional logics and how this configurations changes over time based on broader political and socio-cultural transformations. Drawing on longitudinal data on the plays performed by professional theatre companies in Istanbul and Ankara between 1923 and 1980, I investigate how theatres are situated on a spatial map in three different time periods. First, the historical review indicates that two institutional logics dominated Turkish theatre in the chosen periods; enlightenment logic and critical-aesthetics logic. Second, the results of the multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis reveals that diverse theatre clusters emerged in each period, as a direct outcome of the prevalent logics and the political ideologies behind them. Mapping of intra-industry variation and how it changes will contribute to the future discussions on the strategic positioning of organizations.

Keywords

Organizational configuration, institutional logics, political effects, theatre, creative industries, multidimensional scaling

Project Number

Bu çalışma, yazarın 2013'te Sabancı Üniversitesi'nde tamamladığı doktora tezinden üretilmiştir.

Türk Tiyatro Alanında Örgütsel Yapılanma: Siyasetin ve Kurumsal Mantıkların Etkileri

Abstract

Örgüt araştırmaları alanında önemli bir teorik çerçeve sunan kurumsal mantıklar, örgütsel alanların rakip anlam sistemleri tarafından nasıl şekillendirildiğini, aktörlerin bu sistemlerin ayrıştırılabilir bileşenlerini kimlik oluşturma, birleştirme ve dönüştürme araçları olarak nasıl kullanabildiklerini gösterir. Bu makale, kurumsal mantıkların tarihsel bir incelemesi yanında, yaratıcı bir endüstri olan Türk tiyatro alanında örgütlerin nasıl konumlandıklarına dair keşfedici bir analiz sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal mantıklar yaklaşımını yapılandırma (konfigürasyon) bakış açısıyla bütünleştirerek, belli kurumsal mantıkların etkisi altındaki bir endüstride örgütlerin birbirleriyle nasıl ilişkilendiklerini geniş siyasi ve sosyo-kültürel dönüşümlere dayalı olarak açıklamaktır. Bunun için, Türkiye’de 1923 ve 1980 yılları arasında İstanbul ve Ankara illerinde faaliyet yürüten profesyonel tiyatrolarca oynanan oyunların verisi toplanmıştır. Bu veriye dayanarak tiyatro topluluklarının üç farklı zaman diliminde ve bir endüstri haritası üzerinde birbirlerine göre nasıl konumlandıkları incelenmiştir. Yapılan tarihsel analiz, seçilen dönemlerde Türk tiyatrosuna iki kurumsal mantığın hâkim olduğunu göstermektedir; aydınlanma mantığı ve eleştirel-estetik mantık. Çok boyutlu ölçekleme (MDS) analizi ve benzerlik hesaplaması sonuçları ise, her dönemde farklı tiyatro kümelerinin ortaya çıktığını, bunun da hâkim mantıklar ile beraber bu mantıkların dayandığı politik ideolojilerin doğrudan bir sonucu olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmada tanımlanan ve yorumlanan konfigürasyonlar, endüstrilerin kurumsal mantıklar yoluyla inşasına ve dönüşümüne dair anlayışımızı genişletmektedir. Endüstri içi varyasyonun ve değişiminin haritalanması ile örgüt gruplarının stratejik konumlanması üzerine gelecekteki tartışmalara katkı sağlanması umulmaktadır.

Keywords

Örgütsel yapılanma, kurumsal mantıklar, politik etkiler, tiyatro, yaratıcı endüstriler, çok boyutlu ölçümleme analizi

Project Number

Bu çalışma, yazarın 2013'te Sabancı Üniversitesi'nde tamamladığı doktora tezinden üretilmiştir.

References

• Ahmad, F. (2008). Bir Kimlik Peşinde Türkiye. Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Akıncı, U. (2003). Kalemden Sahneye: 1946’dan Günümüze Türk Oyun Yazarlığında Eğilimler, 1.Cilt. YGS Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Akşin, S. (2005). Siyasal Tarih. In S. Akşin (Ed.), Türkiye Tarihi 4.Cilt: Çağdaş Türkiye (1908- 1980), Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul.
• Alvesson, M. (1990). Organizations: From substance to image? Organizational Studies, 11(3), 373-394.
• And, M. (1983). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Tiyatrosu. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Armstrong, E. A. & Bernstein, M. (2008). Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi-Institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements, Sociological Theory, 26(1), 74–99.
• Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional Emergence in an Era of Globalization: The rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 297–351.
• Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
• Binder, A. (2007). For Love and Money: Organizations‘ Creative Responses to Multiple Environmental Logics, Theoretical Sociology, 36(6), 547-571.
• Boratav, K. (2009). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi: 1908-2007, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
• Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton Univ. Press, NJ: Princeton.
• Colyvas, J. A. & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to Institutionalization: The Remaking of Boundaries between Public and Private Science, Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305-353.
• Çelenk, S. (2003). Kalemden Sahneye: 1946’dan Günümüze Türk Oyun Yazarlığında Eğilimler, 3.Cilt, YGS Yayınları, İstanbul.
• DiMaggio, P. J. (1997). Culture and Cognition, Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263-87.
• DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
• Erkoç, G. (1993). Türk Tiyatrosunda 1960-1970 Dönemi: Tiyatro Toplulukları ve Etkinlikleri, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Fiss, P. C., Cambré, B. & Marx, A. (Eds.) (2013). Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
• Fligstein, N. (1996). Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions. American Sociological Review, 61, 656–673.
• Friedland, R. & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions, In W.W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (232-263), Chicago University Press, Chicago.
• Glynn, M. A. & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the Critics‘ Corner: Logic Blending, Discursive Change and Authenticity in a Cultural Production System, Journal of Management, Studies, 42(5), 1031-1055.
• Gürçağlar, Ş. T. (2008). Politics and Poetics of Translation in Turkey, 1923-1960, Brill Publishing, Leiden.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson.
• Hannan, M. T. (2005). Ecologies of Organizations: Diversity and Identity, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 51-70.
• Haveman, H. A. & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments, American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606-1651.
• Hedberg, L. & Lounsbury, M. (2021). Not Just Small Potatoes: Cultural Entrepreneurship in the Moralizing of Markets, Organization Science, 32(2), 433-454.
• Hirsch, P. M. (2000). Cultural Industries Revisited, Organization Science, 11(3), 356–361.
• Jakob-Sadeh, L. & Zilber, T. B. (2019). Bringing “Together”: Emotions and Power in Organizational Responses to Institutional Complexity, Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1413–1443.
• Jones, C. & Thornton, P. H. (2005). Transformation in Cultural Industries (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 23), Emerald Group Publishing, Oxford.
• Keyder, Ç. (1979). The Political Economy of Turkish Democracy, New Left Review, 115(1), 3-44.
• King, B. G. & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The Contentiousness of Markets: Politics, Social Movements, and Institutional Change in Markets, Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249–267.
• Kongar, E. (1993). İmparatorluktan Günümüze Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Yapısı, Vol. 1-2, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul.
• Kruskal, J. B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional Scaling, Sage Publications, London.
• Lamertz, K., Pursey, P. M., Heugens, A. R. & Calmet, L. (2005). The Configuration of Organizational Images Among Firms in the Canadian Beer Brewing Industry, Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 817-843.
• Lee, M. D. P. & Lounsbury, M. (2015). Filtering Institutional Logics: Community Logic Variation and Differential Responses to the Institutional Complexity of Toxic Waste, Organization Science, 26(3), 847–866.
• Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S. & Toubiana, M. (2021). New Directions in the Study of Institutional Logics: From Tools to Phenomena, Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 261-280.
• Lounsbury, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289-307.
• Mair, J., Marti, I. & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building Inclusive Markets in Rural Bangladesh: How Intermediaries Work Institutional Voids, Academy of Management Journal, 55, 819-50.
• Martin, J. L. & Lembo, A. (2020). On the Other Side of Values, American Journal of Sociology, 126(1), 52–98.
• Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
• Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S. & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195.
• Miller, D. (2018). Challenging Trends in Configuration Research: Where Are the Configurations? Strategic Organization, 16(4), 453-469.
• Misangyi, V., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S. vd. (2017). Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neoconfigurational Perspective, Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
• Mohr, J. W. & Guerra-Pearson, F. (2005). The Duality of Niche and Form: The Differentiation 240 of Institutional Space in New York City, 1988-1917, In: W. Powell & D. Jones (Eds.), How Institutions Change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Mohr, J. W. & Duquenne, V. (1997). The Duality of Culture and Practice: Poverty Relief in New York City, 1888–1917, Theory and Society, 26, 305–356.
• Nutku, Ö. (2008). Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi - 2, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul.
• Pache, A. & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics, Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
• Peterson, R. A. & Anand, N. (2004). The Production of Cultural Perspective, Annual Review of Psychology, 30(1), 311-334.
• Rao, H., Monin, P. & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy, American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795-843.
• Ruef, M. (1999). Social Ontology and the Dynamics of Organizational Forms: Creating Market Actors in the Healthcare Field, 1966-1994, Social Forces, 77(4), 1403-1432.
• Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. (2002). Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-27.
• Short, J.C., Payne, G.T. & Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Research on Organizational Configurations: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges, Journal of Management, 34(6), 1053–1079.
• Soule, S. A. (2009). Contentious and Private Politics and Corporate Social Responsibility, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Spencer, N. H. (2014). Essential of Multivariate Data Analysis, CRC Press, Florida.
• Stata (2007). Stata Multivariate Statistics Reference Manual: Release 10, Stata Press, Texas.
• Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286.
• Şener, S. (2007). Oyunlar ve Gerçekler, Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara.
• Şener, S. (1998). Cumhuriyet’in 75. Yılında Türk Tiyatrosu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Tazegül, M. (2005). Modernleşme Sürecinde Türkiye, Babil Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics, In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, (99-129), Sage Publications, London.
• Toubiana, M. & Zietsma, C. (2017). The Message is on the Wall? Emotions, Social Media and the Dynamics of Institutional Complexity, Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 922–953.
• Tsogo, L., Masson, M. H. & Bardot, A. (2000). Multidimensional Scaling Methods for Many Object-Sets: A Review, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(3), 307-319.
• Wagemann, C., Buche, J. & Siewert, M. (2016). QCA and Business Research: Work in Progress or a Consolidated Agenda? Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2531–2540.
• Yüksel, A. (1995). Modern Türk Tiyatrosunda Arayış ve Gelişmeler, Tiyatro Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(12), 123-131.
• Zhao, E. Y, & Wry, T. (2016). Not All Inequality is Equal: Deconstructing the Societal Logic of Patriarchy to Understand Microfinance Lending to Women. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1994–2020.