Postmodernizm ve Komplekslik: Örgüt Kuramı Bağlamında Paradigmatik Bir Tartışma

Abstract

Sosyal bilimler alanında son yıllarda postmodernizm ve komplekslik kavramları yoğun olarak tartışılmaktadır. Postmodernizm örgüt kuramı açısından geniş olarak tartışılmış bir kavramdır. Komplekslik kuramından da örgüt araştırmalarına önemli katkılar sağlaması bek‐ lenmektedir. Bu çalışmada literatürün bir bölü‐ münde birbirleri ile ilişkili gibi görünen postmodernizm ve komplekslik kuramı incelene‐ rek Burrell ve Morgan tarafından oluşturulan çerçevede konumlandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak postmodernizmin ve komplekslik kuramının görece birbirlerinden farklı yaklaşım‐ lar oldukları, postmodernizmin genel olarak radikal hümanist kısımda, komplekslik kuramının da ağırlıklı olarak işlevselci kısımda yer aldığı anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Örgüt kuramı, postmo‐ dernizm, komplekslik, sosyal bilim paradigmaları

Postmodernism and Complexity: A Paradig‐ matic Debate in the Context of Organization Theory

Abstract

In recent years, postmodernism and complexity have been discussed intensively in the social sciences. Postmodernism, as a concept, has been widely discussed from the organization theory perspective. It’s expected that complexity theory will make important contributions to the organization research. In this study, post‐modernism and complexity theory, which is implied to have strong connections with each other in the literature, are examined as well as being positioned at the Burrell and Morgan framework. Results of the study show that postmodernism and complexity theories are relatively different from each other. As postmodernism is generally positioned at the radical‐humanist section, complexity theory is mostly positioned at the functionalist section.

Keywords

• Organization theory,postmodernism,complexity,social sciences paradigms.

References

1. Adler, P. ve B. Borys (1993), “Materialism and Idealism in Organizational Re‐ search”, Organization Studies, 14:5, 657‐659.
2. Alvesson, M. ve S.Deetz (2006), “Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies”. S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence ve W. R. Nord (Der.), The sage handbook of organization studies: 255‐283. 2. Basım, London: Sage.
3. Anderson, P. (1999), “Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science”, Organization Science, 10:3, 216 – 232.
4. Astley, W. G. ve A. H. Van de Ven (1983), “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:2 , 245 – 273.
5. Audi, R. (1995), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Axelrod, R., W. Mitchell, R. Thomas, D.S Bennet ve E. Brudder (1995), “Coalition Formation in Standard – Setting Alliances”, Management Science, 41, 1493 – 1508.
7. Bak, P. (1996), How Nature Works: The Science of Self‐Organized Criticality, New York: Copernicus Books.
8. Bak, P., C. Tang ve K. Wiesenfeld (1988), “Self – Organized Criticality”, Physical Review A, 38:1, 364 – 374.

9. Battram, A. (1999), Karmaşıklıkta Yol Almak, (Çev: Z. Dicleli), İstanbul: Türk Henkel Dergisi Yayınları.
10. Baum, J. A. C. ve B. S. Silverman (1999), “Complexity in the Dynamics of Organiza‐ tional Founding and Failure”, (Der.) M. Lissack and H. Gunz (1999), Managing Complexity in Organizations: View from Many Directions, New York: Quorum Press: 292‐ 312.
11. Baum, J. A. C. ve T. J. Rowley (2002), “Companion to Organizations: An Introduc‐ tion”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum (2002), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Ox‐ ford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.: 1‐ 34.
12. Berger, P. L. ve T. Luckmann (1967), The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Doubleday.
13. Burgelman, R. A. (1994), “Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Busi‐ ness Exist in Dynamic Environments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24 – 56.
14. Burrell, G. ve G. Morgan (1998), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analy‐ sis, Onuncu basım, Hants: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
15. Calas, M. B. ve L. Smircich (1997), “Introduction”, (Der.) M. B. Calas ve L. Smircich (1997), Postmodern Management Theory, Aldershot: Ashgate & Dartmouth Pub‐ lishers Inc.: xi‐xxix.
16. Capra, F. (1982), The Turning Point: Science, Society and The Rising Culture, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
17. Carley, K. M. (2002), “Intraorganizational Organizational Complexity”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum (2002), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.: 208 – 232.
18. Castels, M. 2005. Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür, Birinci Cilt: Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. İstanbul: İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları.
19. Casti, J. L. (1994), Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, HarperPerennial.
20. Cevizcioğlu, A. (1999), Paradigma Felsefe Sözlüğü, Üçüncü basım: İstanbul: Pra‐ digma Yayınları.
21. Chia, R. (2003), “Organization Theory as a Postmodern Science”, (Der.) H. Tsou‐ kasve C. Knudsen (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 113‐140.
22. Cilliers, P. (1998), Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Sys‐ tems, New York: Routledge.
23. Clegg, S. (2003), “Managing Organization Futures in a Changing World”, (Der.) H. Tsoukasve C. Knudsen (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 536 – 567.
24. Clegg, S. R., C. Hardy ve W. R. Nord (Der.) (1996), Handbook of Organizational Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Cooper, R. ve G. Burrell, (1988), “Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis”, Organization Studies, 9:1, 91‐112.
26. Davis, G. F. ve C. Marquis (2005), “Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty‐first Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms”, Organization Science, 16, 4: 332‐343.
27. Deetz, S. (1996), “Describing Differences in Approach to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy”, Organization Science, 7:2, 191 – 207.
28. Donaldson, L. (1995), American Anti‐Management Theory of Organizations, Cam‐ bridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Eisenhardt, K. M. ve M. M. Bhatia, (2002)., “Organizational Complexity and Com‐ putation”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum, The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Ox‐ ford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.: 442 – 466.
30. Erdemir, E. (2000), Postmodern Yaklaşımın Yönetim ve Örgüt Yapılarına Etkileri: Modernden Postmoderne Dönüşüm Tartışmalarının Yönetim Teorisine Katkıları, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), OGU Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
31. Friere, P. (1972), Pedagogy of Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
32. Gergen, K. (1992), “Organization Theory in the Postmodern Era”, (Der.) M. Reed ve M. Hughes (2003), Rethinking Organization, London: Sage Publications: 207‐ 226. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. Giddens, A. (1998), Modernliğin Sonuçları, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
34. Gioia, D.A. ve E. Pitre (1990), “Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building”, Academy of Management Review, 15:4, 584 – 602.
35. Gleick, J. (2000), Kaos: Yeni Bir Bilim Teorisi, (Çev: F. Üçcan), Dokuzuncu Basım, Ankara: TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
36. Gulati, R. ve M. Gargiulo (1999), “Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?”, American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1439 – 1493.
37. Hassard, J. (1993), Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kauffman, S. A. (1991), “Antichaos and Adaptation: Biological Evolution May Have Been Shaped by More Than Just Natural Selection”, Scientific American, 265:2, 78 – 84.
39. Kauffman, S. A. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self – Organization and Complexity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Kilduff, M. ve A. Mehra (1997), “Postmodernism and Organizational Research”, Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 453‐481.
41. Koç, U. (2004), “Komplekslik Yaklaşımı ve Bilgi Yönetimi”, 3. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi Yayınları: 419 – 432.
42. Koç, U. ve E. Erdemir (2005), “Postmodernizm ve Komplekslik: Örgüt Kuramında Güncel Tartışmalar”, 4. Ulusal Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı: 789‐806.
43. Kuhn, L. ve R. Woog (2005), “Vortical Postmodern Ethnography: Introducing a Complexity Approach to Systemic Social Theorizing”, Systems Research and Be‐ havioral Science, 22 , 139 – 150.
44. Kuhn, T. S. (1995), Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı (Çev: N. Kuyaş), Dördüncü Basım, İstanbul: Alan Yayıncılık.
45. Letiche, H. (2001), “Phenomenal Complexity Theory and Politics of Organization”, Emergence, 3:4, 5 – 31.
46. Lewin, A. Y. ve H. W. Volberda (2003), “The Future of Organization Studies: Be‐ yond the Selection – Adaptation Debate”, (Der.) H. Tsoukas ve C. Knudsen (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 568‐595.
47. Lyotard, J. F. (1994), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Man‐ chester: Manchester University Press.
48. Maguire, S., B. McKelvey, L. Mirabeau ve N. Öztaş (2006), “Complexity Science and Organization Studies”, The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, (2006), Sage Publications Ltd.: 165 – 214.
49. Marshall, G. (1999), Sosyoloji Sözlüğü, (Çev.: O. Akınhay ve D. Kömürcü) Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları.
50. Mathew, K. M., M. C. White ve R. Long (1999), “Why Studying the Complexity Sciences in the Social Sciences?”, Human Relations, 52:4, 439 – 462.
51. McAuley, J., Duberley, B. ve Johnson, P. (2007), Organization Theory: Challenges and Perspectives, Harlow: Prentice Hall.
52. McKelvey, B. (1997), “Quasi – Natural Organization Science”, Organization Sci‐ ence, 8: 4, 352 – 380.
53. McKelvey, B. (2002), “Model – Centered Organization Science Epistemology”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum (2002), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.: 752 – 780.
54. Morçöl, G. (2001), “What is Complexity Science? Postmodernist or Postpositiv‐ ist?”, Emergence, 3:1, 104 – 119.
55. Olson, N., S. J. Perkins, S. Mantere, B. Üsdiken ve M. Wexler (2004), “Special Book Review”, Organization Studies, 25:4, 669 – 680.
56. Parker, M. (1992), “Post‐Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization The‐ ory?”, Organization Science, 13:1, 001‐017.
57. Parwani, R. R. (2002), “Complexity: An Introduction”, http://www.complexity.org.au/ci/draft/draft/parwan01/parwan01s.ps.
58. Pfeffer, J. (1982), Organizations and Organization Theory, Boston: Pitman.
59. Pfeffer, J. (1993), “Barriers to The Advancement of Organizational Science: Para‐ digm Development as A Dependent Variable”, Academy of Management Review, 18:4, 599 – 620.
60. Pfeffer, J. (1995), “Morality, Reproducibility, and The Persistence Style of Theory”, Organization Science, 6 (6), 682 – 686.
61. Pinder, C. ve V. Bourgeois (1982), “Borrowing and Effectiveness of Administrative Science”, Working Paper No. 848, University of British Columbia.
62. Power, M. (1990), “Modernism, Postmodernism and Organization”, (Der.) J. Has‐ sard ve D. Pym (1990), The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations, London: Rout‐ ledge: 109‐124.
63. Prigogine, I. (1981), From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences, New York: W H Freeman & Co.
64. Prigogine, I. ve I. Stengers (1984), Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, New York: Bantam Books.
65. Prigogine, I., G. Nicholis ve A. Babloyantz (1972), “Thermodynamics of Evolution: Part I”, Physics Today, 25, 23 ‐28 (a).
66. Prigogine, I., G. Nicholis ve A. Babloyantz (1972), “Thermodynamics of Evolution: Part II”, Physics Today, 25, 38 ‐ 44 (b).
67. Reed, M. (2006), “Organizational Theorizing: A Historically Contested Terrain”, The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, (2006), Sage Publications Ltd.: 19‐54.
68. Schultz, M. ve J. M. Hatch (1996), “Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies”, Academy of Management Review, 21 (2), 529‐557.
69. Scott, W. R. (1981), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Birinci basım, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall.
70. Scott, W. R. (1998), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Dördüncü basım, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall.
71. Scott, W. R. (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Beşinci basım, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.
72. Singh, H. ve A. Singh (2002), “Principles of Complexity and Chaos Theory in Project Execution: A New Approach to Management”, Cost Engineering, 44:12: 23‐33.
73. Swedberg, R. (2003), “Economic versus Sociological Approaches to Organization Theory”, (Der.) H. Tsoukasve C. Knudsen (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organi‐ zation Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 373‐391.
74. Tsoukas, H. (2003), “New Times, Fresh Challenges: Reflections on the Past and the Future of Organization Theory” (Der.) H. Tsoukas ve C. Knudsen (2003), The Ox‐ ford Handbook of Organization Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 607 – 622.
75. Tsoukas, H. ve M. J. Hatch (2001), “Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity”, Human Relations, 54:8, 979 – 1013.
76. Tsoukas. H. ve C. Knudsen (2003), “Introduction: the Need for Meta – Theoretical Reflection in Organization Theory”, (Der.) H. Tsoukas ve C. Knudsen (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.: 1 – 36.
77. Üsdiken, B. (2002), “Tarihsel Bir Bakışla Bilim – Yönetim Birlikteliği”, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2:2, 127 – 154.
78. Üsdiken, B. ve H. Leblebici (2001), “Organization Theory”, (Der.) N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (2001), International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 2. cilt: 377 – 397.
79. Van Maanen, J. V., (1995), “Style as Theory”, Organization Science, 6:1, 133 – 143.
80. Waldrop, M. M. (1992), Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
81. Willmott, H. (1990), “Beyond Paradigmatic Closure in Organizational Enquiry”, (Der.) J. Hassardve Denis Pym, The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations: Criti‐ cal Issues and New Perspectives: 44 ‐60.
82. Willmott, H. (1993), “Breaking the Paradigm Mentality”, Organization Studies, 14:5, 681 – 719.
83. Yıldırım, E. (2002), “‘Cogito Ergo Sum’dan ‘Vivo Ergo Sum’a Örgütsel Analiz”, Yöne‐ tim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2:2,155 – 185.
84. Yıldırım, E. (2007), “Örgüt Kuramında Yeni Gelişmeler: Postmodern ve Eleştirel Bakış”. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Der.), Örgüt Kuramları İmge Yayıncılık: Ankara: 379‐ 406.