Dört Temel Örgüt Kuramının Genel Değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3, 730 - 746, 29.09.2020

Tutku Seçkin Çelik

https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.548390

Cited By: 4

https://izlik.org/JA43BS46BG

Öz

Bu çalışmayla dört temel örgüt kuramı (koşul bağımlılık kuramı, kaynak bağımlılığı kuramı, kurumsal kuram ve örgütsel ekoloji kuramı) hakkında temel bir anlayış sağlamak amaçlanmıştır. Bu kuramların karşılaştırılmaları yanında, genel tarihsel bir özet sunmak hedeflenmektedir. Koşul bağımlılık kuramı, kaynak bağımlılığı kuramı, kurumsal kuram ve örgütsel ekoloji kuramının temel varsayımları ve bakış açıları genel olarak değerlendirilmiş ve temel kısıtları ile haklarında getirilen eleştiriler tartışılmıştır. Bunların yanında dünya üzerinde tanınmış bu kuramların daha detaylı irdelenerek bir karşılaştırması yapılmıştır. Her ne kadar çevreyi ele alan bu dört örgüt kuramı benzerlikler taşısalar ve birleştirilseler daha değerli olacakmış gibi görünseler de, temel olarak birbirlerinden çok ayrışmaktadırlar. Bu dört temel örgüt kuramının hangi analiz seviyesinde olduğu, baskın metodolojik yöntemleri, örgütü ele alış biçimi ve başarı kriterleri gibi temel birtakım ölçütleri gözetilerek genel bir değerlendirme yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Koşul bağımlılık kuramı , kaynak bağımlılığı kuramı , kurumsal kuram , örgütsel ekoloji , örgüt teorisi

An Overview of Four Fundamental Theories of Organizations

https://izlik.org/JA43BS46BG

Öz

The aim of this paper is to provide a basic understanding about the four fundamental theories of organization: Contingency theory, resource dependence theory, institutional theory, and population ecology theory of organizations, and to review in which way these theories differ in a detailed way. Along with a comparison of these theories, this paper aims to provide a general historical summary about them. Base assumptions and standpoints of these theories are overviewed, and main limitations and critiques against these theories are discussed. Besides, a comparison is provided to further explicate these highly acknowledged theories. While all four theories carry a resemblance and may seem to be more valuable if converge, they are fundamentally different from each other. A general review was carried out on some fundamental criteria such as the level of analysis, preferred methodological methods, depiction of organization and success criteria.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Contingency theory , resource dependence theory , institutional theory , population ecology , organization theory

Kaynakça

• Aldrich, H.E. and Pfeffer, J. (1976). “Environments of Organizations”, Annual Review of Sociology, 2:79-105.
• Baum, J.A. (1999). “Organizational Ecology”, In: Studying Organization: Theory and Method (Eds: S.R. Clegg and C. Hardy), London: SAGE.
• Baum, J.A. and Powell, W.W. (1995). “Cultivating an Institutional Ecology of Organizations: Comment on Hannan, Carroll, Dundon, and Torres”, American Sociological Review, 60(4):529-538.
• Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistock.
• Casciaro, T. and Piskorski, M.J. (2005), “Power imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2):167-199.
• Davis, G.F. and Cobb, J.A. (2009). “Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future”, In: Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Ed: S.B. Bacharach), London: Elsevier.
• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160.
• DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991). “Introduction”, In: The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Eds: W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Donaldson, L. (1995). American Anti-management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Duncan, R.B. (1972). “Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3):313-327.
• Galaskiewicz, J. and Marsden, P.V. (1978). “Interorganizational Resource Networks: Formal Patterns of Overlap”, Social Science Research, 7(2):89-107.
• Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977). “The Population Ecology of Organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, 82(5):929-964.
• Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984). “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Sociological Review, 49(2):149-164.
• Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A. (2013). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hawley, A. (1968). “Human Ecology”, In: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Ed: D.L. Sills), New York: Macmillan.
• Hillman, A.J., Withers, M.C. and Collins, B.J. (2009). “Resource Dependence Theory: A Review”, Journal of Management, 35(6):1404-1427.
• Hofer, C.W. (1975). “Toward a Contingency Theory of Business Strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, 18(4):784-810.
• Jaffe, D. (2001). Organization Theory: Tension and Change, Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
• Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967a). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Boston: Harvard University.
• Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967b). “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1):1-47.
• Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977). “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2):340-363.
• Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R. (1983). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, California: Stanford University Press.
• Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1974). “The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4):453-473.
• Schoonhoven, C.B. (1981). “Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency Theory", Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3):349-377.
• Selznick, P. (1996). “Institutionalism "Old" and "New", Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:270-277.
• Singh, J.V. and Lumsden, C.J. (1990). “Theory and Research in Organizational Ecology”, Annual Review of Sociology, 16:161-195.
• Suddaby, R. (2010). “Challenges for Institutional Theory”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1):14-20.
• Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1996). “The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory”, In: Handbook of Organization Studies (Eds: S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord), London: Sage.
• Ulrich, D. and Barney, J.B. (1984). “Perspectives in Organizations: Resource Dependence, Efficiency, and Population”, Academy of Management Review, 9(3):471-481.
• Young, R.C. (1988). “Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for the Study of Organizations?”, American Journal of Sociology, 94(1):1-24.