INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE OF UNSAFE PRODUCTION THROUGH SAFETY RULES IN SOMA

Abstract

Past studies on institutional maintenance show that there is harmony between institutional rules and norms and institutional relations and practices, and operational consistency due to harmony. Yet, past literature ignores the question of how institutional maintenance is possible when there is no harmony. Within the context of the Soma Disaster, this study tries to answer the question of how production-oriented understanding and operation, which generally conflicts with and almost ignores safety rules, is maintained as an institutional framework with the help of the same safety rules in sector where safety rules are vital, and address the gap in the literature. The study demonstrates that safety rules are arbitrarily applied within the constraints of production priorities, without safety improvements and effective monitoring, and with a workforce of almost no training. This application supports production-oriented operation in the relation between chiefs and miners and turns this relation into institutional maintenance work for production-oriented framework.

Keywords

• Institutional maintenance
• rules
• norms
• safety

Project Number

BAP-07-03-2015-011

SOMA’DA GÜVENLİK KURALLARI VE GÜVENLİKSİZ ÜRETİMİN KURUMSAL MUHAFAZASI

Abstract

Kurumsal muhafaza üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, kavramsal bir çerçeve olarak kurallar ve normlar ile kurumsal ilişkiler ve pratikler arasında genel bir uyum ve bu uyum sayesinde tutarlı bir işleyiş olduğunu göstermektedir. Fakat geçmiş çalışmalar, bu uyumun olmadığı durumlarda kurumsal muhafazanın nasıl gerçekleştiği sorusunu ihmal etmektedir. Bu çalışma, Soma Maden Faciası bağlamında, güvenlik kurallarının yaşamsal olduğu çok tehlikeli bir sektörde, güvenliği neredeyse yok sayan ve ilgili kurallarla çelişen üretim odaklı dar bakışın ve kurumsal işleyişin nasıl olup da bu kurallara dayanarak muhafaza edilip sürdürülebildiği sorusuna cevap arayarak literatürdeki bu açığı gidermeye çalışmaktadır. Çalışma, madenlerde güvenlik kurallarının üretimi sınırlamamak koşuluyla, keyfi, daha fazla güvenlik yönünde değişikliklere yol açmayacak şekilde, yeterince denetlenmeden ve madencilere ilgili eğitim verilmeden uygulandığına işaret etmektedir. Bu uygulama amirler ve madenciler arasındaki ilişkide üretim odaklı işleyişi besler ve amir-madenci ilişkisini üretim odaklı işleyişin sürmesini sağlayan bir kurumsal muhafaza işine dönüştürür.

Keywords

• Kurumsal muhafaza
• kural
• norm
• güvenlik

Supporting Institution

ODTÜ

Project Number

BAP-07-03-2015-011

References

1. Acquier, A., Carbone, V., ve Moatti, V. (2018). Teaching the Sushi Chef: Hybridization Work and CSR Integration in a Japanese Multinational Company, Journal of Business Ethics, 148, s. 625-645.
2. Andersson, T. ve Gadolin, C. (2020). Understanding Institutional Work through Social Interaction in Highly Institutionalized Settings: Lessons from Public Healthcare Organizations, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(2), s. 1-10.
3. Bartram, T., Stanton, P., Bamber, G. J., Leggat, S. G., Ballardie, R., ve Gough, R. (2020). Engaging Professionals in Sustainable Workplace Innovation: Medical Doctors and Institutional Work, British Journal of Management, 31, s. 41-55.
4. Bjerregaard, T. ve Jonasson, C. (2014). Managing Unstable Institutional Contradictions: The Work of Becoming, Organization Studies, 35(10), s. 1507-1536.
5. Chreim, S., Langley, A., Reay, T., Comeau-Vallee, M., ve Huq, J. L. (2020). Constructing and Sustaining Counter-institutional Identities, Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), s. 935-964.
6. Creed, W. E. D., Dejordy, R., ve Lok, J. (2010). Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), s. 1336-1364.
7. Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G., ve Waring, J. (2012). Institutional Work to Maintain Professional Power: Recreating the Model of Medical Professionalism, Organization Studies, 33(7), s. 937-962.
8. Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., ve Tracey, P. (2010). Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), s. 1393-1418.

9. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research içinde, s. 1-32. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
10. Empson, L., Cleaver, I., ve Allen, J. (2013). Managing Partners and Management Professionals: Institutional Work Dyads in Professional Partnerships, Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), s. 808-844.
11. Gephart, R. P. (1993). The Textual Approach: Risk and Blame in Disaster Sensemaking, Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), s. 1465-1514.
12. Gephart, R. P. (1997). Hazardous Measures: An Interpretive Textual Analysis of Quantitative Sensemaking during Crises, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 18, s. 583-622.
13. Gephart, R. P. (2004). From the Editors: Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), s. 454-462.
14. Gephart, R. P. ve Pitter, R. (1995). Textual Analysis in Technology Research: An Investigation of the Management of Technology Risk. Technology Studies, 2: 325-356.
15. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
16. Glaser, B. G. ve Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
17. Grafstrom, M. ve Windell, K. (2012). Newcomers Conserving the Old: Transformation Processes in the Field of New Journalism, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, s. 65-76.
18. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., ve Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields, Academy of Management Journal, 45, s. 58-80.
19. Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Repairing Breaches with Rules: Maintaining Institutions in the Face of Everyday Disruptions, Organization Science, 24(5), s. 1291-1315.
20. Herepath, A. ve Kitchener, M. (2016). When Small Bandages Fails: The Field-level Repair of Severe and Protracted Institutional Breaches, Organization Studies, 37(8), s. 1113-1139.
21. Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J.M., Sorhammer, D., ve Witell, L. (2016). Innovation in Service Ecosystems - Breaking, Making, and Maintaining Institutionalized Rules of Resource Integration, Journal of Business Research, 69, s. 2964-2971.
22. Lawrence, T. B. ve Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work, S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, ve W. R. Nord (Ed.), Handbook of Organization Studies içinde, s. 215-254. London: Sage.
23. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., ve Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and Studying Institutional Work, T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, ve B. Leca (Ed.), Institutional Work içinde, s. 1-27. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., ve Leca, B. (2011). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), s. 52-58.
25. Lingo, E. L. ve Elmes, M. B. (2019). Institutional Preservation Work at a Family Business in Crisis: Microprocesses, Emotions, and Nonfamily Members, Organization Studies, 40(6), s. 887-916.
26. Malsch, B. ve Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing Change: Institutional Experimentation and the Struggles for Domination in the Field of Public Accounting, Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), s. 870-899.
27. McCann, L., Granter, E., Hyde, P., ve Hassard, J. (2013). Still Blue-Collar after All These Years? An Ethnography of the Professionalization of Emergency Ambulance Work, Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), s. 750-776.
28. Raviola, E. ve Norback, M. (2013). Bringing Technology and Meaning into Institutional Work: Making News at an Italian Business Newspaper, Organization Studies, 34(8), s. 1171-1194.
29. Rodner, V., Roulet, T. J., Kerrigan, F., ve Lehn, D. V. (2020). Making Space for Art: A Spatial Perspective of Disruptive and Defensive Institutional Work in Venezuela’s Art World, Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), s. 1054-1081.
30. Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing Talk and Text, Norman K. Denzin ve Yvonna S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research içinde, s. 869-886. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
31. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not, Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), s. 633-642.
32. Türk Mühendis ve Mimar Odaları Birliği. (2014). Soma Maden Faciası TMMOB Raporu, Ankara.
33. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği. (2016). İki Yılın Ardından Soma Maden Faciası Raporu, Ankara.
34. Türkiye Barolar Birliği. (2014. Soma Maden Faciası Raporu, Ankara.
35. Wright, A. L., Zammuto, R. F., ve Liesch, P. W. (2017). Maintaining the Values of a Profession: Institutional Work and Moral Emotions in the Emergency Department, Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), s. 200-237.
36. Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an Interplay between Actions, Meanings, and Actors: The Case of Rape Crisis Center in Israel, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), s. 234-254.
37. Zilber, T. B. (2009). Institutional Maintenance as Narrative Acts, T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, ve B. Leca (Ed.), Institutional Work içinde, s. 205-235. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional Logics and Institutional Work: Should They Be Agreed? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, s. 77-96.