TÜRKİYE’DE İŞ İNSANLARININ ÖRGÜTLER ARASI SOSYAL AĞLARA KATILMA NEDENLERİ

Year 2021, , 181 - 197, 30.09.2021

Murat Cubukcu

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2021.1450

Abstract

Amaç - Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de İSO ilk 500 sanayi kuruluşu içerisinde yer alan kuruluşların iş insanlarının sosyal ağlara katılma nedenlerinin
belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır.
Metodoloji – Araştırma yöntemi olarak, araştırma sorusu gereği, araştırma verilerine dayanılarak niceliksel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılmıştır.
Literatürdeki tartışmalardan yola çıkarak oluşturulan araştırma sorularını açıklamaya yönelik kuramsal çerçeve geliştirilmiş ve ağlara katılma
nedenlerine yönelik gerekçeler oluşturulmuştur. Bu belirlenen 10 gerekçe, ağlara ilişkin çıkarımlarımızı desteklemek amacıyla Türk iş insanlarına
anket formu yoluyla sorulmuştur.
Bulgular - İş insanlarının ağlara katılma gerekçelerinde Türkiye’ye özgü birtakım sonuçlar görülmektedir. Türkiye’de ağ ilişkilerinin oluşumunda ve
Türk iş insanlarının bu ağlara katılma gerekçelerinde yerelliğin etkisi görülmektedir. Benzer profildeki iş insanlarının benzer ağlarda toplandıkları
tespit edilmiştir.
Sonuç - İş insanlarının aynı bölgede yaşama ve çalışma, cinsiyet, tutulan spor kulübü, hemşehri ve mesleki dayanışma ağları gibi bağlama göre
birbirleriyle bağlantılı yakınlaşmalar, gruplaşmalar ve kümelenmeler içerisinde bulundukları görülmektedir. Türk iş insanlarının da ağırlıklı olarak
kendileri ile benzer nitelikleri taşıyan insanlarla bir araya gelmelerini sağlayan sosyal ağlarda yer aldıkları tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları,
girişimcilerin ortak özellikte olan diğer iş insanları ile yerleşik ilişkiler kurabildiğini göstermektedir. Türkiye’deki yerleşiklik etkisi, Batı’ya göre farklı
saikler ve sonuçlar üretmektedir.

Keywords

Ağlar, sosyal ağlar, örgütler arası ağlar, ağlara katılım nedenleri, yerleşiklik

REASONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS TO PARTICIPATE IN INTER ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS IN TURKEY

Abstract

Purpose- In this study, it is aimed to determine the reasons for the participation of business people in social networks of organizations that are
among the first 500 industrial enterprises of ISO in Turkey.
Methodology- As a research method, quantitative research methods were used, based on the research data, in accordance with the research
question. A theoretical framework was developed to explain the research questions based on the discussions in the literature, and the reasons
for joining the networks were created. These 10 reasons were asked to Turkish business people via a questionnaire in order to support your
conclusions about networks.
Findings- There are some results specific to Turkey in the reasons for business people to join the networks. The effect of locality is seen in the
formation of network relations in Turkey and the reasons for Turkish business people to join these networks. It has been determined that business
people with similar profiles gather in similar networks.
Conclusion- It is seen that business people are in convergence, groupings and clusters related to each other according to the context, such as
living and working in the same region, gender, sports clubs, fellow countrymen and professional solidarity networks. It has been determined that
Turkish business people are mostly involved in social networks that enable them to come together with people with similar qualifications. The
results of the research show that entrepreneurs can establish established relationships with other business people with common characteristics.
The effect of embedded in Turkey produces different motives and results compared to the West.

Keywords

Networks, social networks, inter-organizational networks, reasons for joining networks, embeddedness

References

• Achrol, R.S., Kotler, P., (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing, 63, 146-163.
• Adler, P., Kwon, S.W., (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
• Alter, C., Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. London: Sage.
• Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A., (1991). Partnering as a focused market strategy. California Management Review, 33(3), 95-113.
• Axelsson, B., Easton, G., (1992). Industrial networks. a new view of reality. 1. Ed., London and New York: Routledge.
• Bae, J., Gargiulo, M., (2003). Partner substitutability and the structure of interfirm relations. Academy of Management Journal, Insead Working Paper Series 2003/51/0B, 1-25.
• Baum, J.A.C., Christine, O., (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218.
• Baum, J.A.C., Rowley, T., (2002). Companion to organizations: an introduction. 1. b., Editors: Joel A.C. Baum, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Bayram, N., (2009). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS ile Veri Analizi. 2. b., Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
• Bikmen, F., Meydanoğlu, Z., (2006). Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum Bir Değişim Süreci, Uluslararası Sivil Toplum Endeksi Projesi, Türkiye Ülke Raporu. İstanbul: Tüsev Yayınları.
• Borch, O.J., Arthur, M.B., (1995). Strategic networks among small firms: implications for strategy research methodology. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 419-441.
• Bourdil, M., Geraudel, M., (2016). What are the interpersonal antecedents of women’s network satisfaction?. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(4), 266-280.
• Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J.J., Greve, H.R., Tsai, W., (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795-817.
• Buğra, A., (1994). State and business in modern turkey: a comparative study. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 1-332.
• Buğra, A., (1995). Devlet ve iş adamları. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Buğra, A., (2001). Kriz ve geleneksel refah rejimi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi VI. Araştırma Zirvesi.
• Buğra, A., (2008). Devlet ve iş adamları. 6. b., Çev., Adaman F., İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Burt, R.S., (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
• Burt, R.S., (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
• Casson, M., Giusta, M.D., (2000). Entrepreneurship and social capital. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 220-244.
• Chell, E., Baines, S., (2000). Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12, 195-215.
• Coleman, J.S., (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
• Çitçi, U.S., Coşkun, R., (2012). Sosyal ağ kullanımında süreç yaklaşımı: girişimcilerin sosyal ağları kullanımında farklılaşmanın değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 125-156.
• Demirkan, İ., Deeds, D.L., (2007). Research collaboration networks and innovation output. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.
• Dodd, S., Jack, S., Anderson, A.R., (2002). Scottish entrepreneurial networks in the international context. International Small Business Journal, 20(2), 213-219.
• Dong, D., Gao, X., Sun, X., Liu, X. (2018). Factors affecting the formation of copper international trade community: based on resource dependence and network Theory. Resources Policy, 57, 167-185.
• Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J., (1975). Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-136.
• Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
• Eisenhardt, K.M., Schoonhoven, C.B., (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150.
• Freeman, L.C., (1979). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
• Gargiulo, M., Benassi, M., (2000). Trapped in your own net? network cohesion, structural holes and the adaptation of social capital. Organizaiton Sicence, 11(2), 183-196.
• Gonzalez, G.R., Claro, D.P., Palmatier, R.W., (2014). Synergistic effects of relationship managers’ social networks on sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 76-94.
• Gökşen, N.S., Üsdiken, B., (2001). Uniformity and diversity in Turkish business groups: effects of scale and time of founding. British Journal of Management, 12, 325–340.
• Gökalp, N., (2003). Ekonomide güven faktörü. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 10(2), 163-174.
• Granovetter, M.S., (1973). The strenght of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
• Granovetter, M., (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
• Gray, B., Wood, D.J., (1991). Collaborative alliances: moving from pratice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22.
• Gulati, R., Gargiulo, M., (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493.
• Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A., (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203-215.
• Heper, M. (2015). Türkiye’de Devlet Geleneği. 5. b, Ankara: Doğu-Batı Yayınları.
• Hinterhuber, H.H., Hirsch, A., (1998). Starting up a strategic network. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(3), 185-207.
• Huggins, R., (2000). The success and failure of policy-implanted inter-firm network initiatives: motivations, processes and structure. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2), 11-135.
• Ibarra, H., Hunter, M.L., (2007). How leaders create and use networks. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 40-47.
• Jaklic, M., (1998). Internationalization strategies, networking and functional discretion. Competition & Change, 3(4), 359-385.
• Jarillo, C.J., (1988). On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 31-41.
• Jarillo, C.J., (1993). Strategic Networks. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann.
• Jones, C., Hesterly, W., Borgatti, S.P. (1997). a general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945.
• Karagül, M., Masca, M. (2005). Sosyal sermaye üzerine bir inceleme. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Bahar: 37-52.
• Kapucu, N., Montgomery, W.V., (2006). The evolving role of the public sector in managing catastrophic disasters. Administration and Society, 38(3), 279-308.
• Kenis, P., Oerlamans, L., (2007). The social network perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. The Oxford Handbook of InterOrganizational Relations, Oxford University Press, 289-312.
• Koç, V., (1983). Hayat Hikayem, 4. b., İstanbul: Apa Ofset.
• Lin, N., (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
• Lin, N., (2001). Social capital: A Theory of Social Structure. NY: Cambridge University Pres.
• Mandjak, T., Simon, J., Szalkai, Z., (2011). A Framework for the analysis of global, regional and local business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 822-829.
• Mardin, Ş., (1973). Center-periphery relations: a key to turkish politics? The MIT Press, 102(1), 169-190.
• Mardin, Ş., (2003). Din ve ideoloji. İstanbul: İletişim.
• Mcpherson, M., Lovin, L.S., Cook, J.M., (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
• Mizruchi, M.S., Yoo, M., (2002). Interorganizational power and dependence, in Joel A.C. Baum (ed.), Companion to Organizations, New York: Blackwell, 599-620.
• Moller, K., Rajala, A., (2007). Rise of strategic nets — new modes of value creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 895-908.
• Moller, K., Halinen, A., (2017). Managing business and innovation networks—from strategic nets to business felds and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 5-22.
• Nelson, R.E., (1988). Social network analysis as intervention tool: examples from the field. Group and Organization Studies, 13(1), 39-58.
• Oliver A.L., Mark, E., (1998). Networking network studies: an analysis of conceptual configurations in the study of inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies, 19(4), 549-594.
• Öberg, C., Shih, T.T.Y., Chou, H.H. (2016). Network strategies and effects in an interactive context. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 117-127.
• Öncü, H., (1994). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Matser Matbaası.
• Öniş, Z., Şenses, F., (2007). Küresel dinamikler, ülkeiçi koalisyonlar ve reaktif devlet. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 34(2), 251-286.
• Özen, Ş., 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.
• Park, S.H., (1996). Managing interorganizational network: a framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies, 17(5), 795-824.
• Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
• Perez, V.F., Montes, F.J.L., Morales, V.J.G., (2014). Towards strategic flexibility: social networks, climate and uncertainty. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 858-871.
• Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., (2017). Network orchestration for value platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106-121.
• Podolny, J.M., Page, K.L., (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57-76.
• Podolny, J.M., (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal os Sociology, 107(1), 33-60.
• Pratono, A.H., (2018). From social network to firm performance. Management Research Review, 41(6), 680-700.
• Provan, K.G., Milward, B.H., (2001). Do networks really work? a framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
• Provan, K.G., Kenis, P., (2007). Modes of network governance: structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
• Rao, H., Davis, G.F., Ward, A., (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility; why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York Stock Exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2),268-292.
• Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I.F., Johnston, W.J., (2004). Managing in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 175-183.
• Robinson, S., (2011). Social networks and entrepreneurial growth. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 15(4), 182-187.
• Sargut, S.A., (2003). Kurumsal alanlardaki örgüt yapılarının oluşmasında ve ekonomik işlemlerin yürütülmesinde güvenin rolü. Sosyal Bilimlerde Güven, Ed. Ferda Erdem, Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 89-124.
• Sargut, S.A., Varoğlu, K., Özen, Ş., Oğuz, F., Sözen, C., Yeloğlu, O.H., Sağsan, M., (2007). Ulusal iş sistemi ve örgüt ağları: merkez-çevre ikiliğinin örgütler arası ilişkilere etkisi. Ankara: TÜBITAK 106K174 Nolu Araştırma Projesi.
• Suchman, M.C., (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
• Sydow, J., Windeler, A., (1998). Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks: a structurationist perspective on network processes and effectiveness. Organization Science, 9(3), 265-284.
• Thorelli, H.B., (1986). Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 37-51.
• Tsai, W., Ghosal, S., (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of interfirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 454-476.
• Tunçay, S.S., Özer, P.S., (2017). Asil-vekil ilişkilerinin kültürel bağlamda sosyal ağ kuramı çerçevesinde sosyal ağ analizi kullanılarak incelenmesi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2): 478-510.
• Tüsiad (1991). Türk toplumunun değerleri. İstanbul: TÜSİAD Yayınları.
• Uzzi, B., (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
• Whitley, R., (2000). The institutional structuring of innovation strategies: business systems, firm types and patterns of technical change in different market economies. Organization Studies, 21(5), 855–886.
• Wolf, H.G., Kim, S., (2012). The relationship between networking behaviors and the big five personality dimensions. Career Development International, 17(1), 43-66.
• Xie, X., Gao, Y., (2018). Strategic networks and new product performance: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(7), 811-824.
• Yeloğlu, H.O., (2005). Ulusal iş sistemlerinde "devlete bağımlılık" kavramı: Türk ulusal iş sistemi üzerine makro kurumsal bir değerlendirme. Marmara Üniversitesi XIII. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 13-15. http://bianet.org/biamag/toplum/1916-kriz-ve-geleneksel-refah-rejimi, (10.03.2021).
• siviltoplum.gov.tr/derneklerin-faaliyet-alanlarına-gore-dagılımı, (15.04.2021).
• siviltoplum.gov.tr/hemsehri-derneklerinin-bolgelere-gore-dağilimi, (15.04.2021).