BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 99 - 110, 01.02.2015

Öz

The purpose of this study is to describe the concept of businessman in the context of Turkey. The concept of businessman covers various meanings and thus it is complex. Businessman shapes and is shaped by the institutional environment in which he operates. Businessman conducts institutional works in order to create, maintain and disrupt the institutional environment surrounding him. Businessman, in this study, is defined through the institutional works that he conducts. With the support of purposefully selected, context-dependent institutional biography, businessman primarily disrupt the taken-for-granted definition of the concept, conducts a meaning creation initiative for re-defining the concept and finally conducts various institutional works in order to maintain and enhance the created concept

Kaynakça

  • Ahmadjian, C.L. ve Robinson, P. (2001) “Safety in Numbers : Downsizing and the Deinstitutionalization of Pernnanent Employment in Japan” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:622-654.
  • Alakavuklar, O.N., Kılıçaslan, S. ve Öztürk, E.B. (2009) “Türkiye’de hayırseverlikten Kurumsal Sosyal So- rumluluğa Geçiş: Bir Kurumsal Değişim Öyküsü” Yöne- tim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2):103-143.
  • Albert, S. ve Whetten, D.A. (1985) “Organizational Identity” Research in Organizational Behavior, Cummings et al. (eds) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Aldemir, C.M., Arbak, Y. ve Özmen Timurcanday, Ö.N. (2003) “Türkiye’de İşgörme Anlayışı: Tanımı ve Boyutları” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1):5-28.
  • Anhier, H.K. (2001) “Foundations in Europe: A Comparative Perspective” Civil Society Working Paper Series, No:18.
  • Ashforth, B.E. ve Gibbs, B.W. (1990) “The Double- edge of Organizational Legitimation” Organization Scien- ce, 1(2):177-194.
  • Barley, S.R. (1986) “Technology As An Occasion For Structuring: Evidence From Observations of CT Scan- ners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31:78-108.
  • Battilana, J. ve D’Aunno, T. (2009) “Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency” Lawrence et al (eds.) Institutional work: Actors and Agency In Institu- tional Studies of Organization, Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press.
  • Berger, P.L. ve Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Cons- truction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Hammondsworth, Penguin Books.
  • Berker, F. ve Uras, G. (2009) Fikir Üreten Fabrika: TÜSİAD’ın İlk On Yılı 1970-1980, İstanbul, Doğan Ki- tap.
  • Berkman, Ü. ve Özen, Ş. (2007) “Turkish Business System and Managerial Culture: State-Dependency and Paternalism in Transition” Davel et al. (eds), Gestion en Contexte İnterculturel: Approches, Problématiques, Pratiques Et Plongées. (Chapter VI.4), Québec: Presse de l’Université Laval et TÉLUQ/UQAM.
  • Buğra, A. (2006) Devlet ve İşadamları, İstanbul, İleti- şim Yayınları.
  • Cem, İ. (2014) Türkiye’de Geri Kalmışlığın Tarihi, 23. Baskı, İstanbul, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  • Çolpan, A.M. ve Hikino, T. (2008) “Türkiye’nin Büyük Şirketler Kesiminde İşletme Gruplarının İktisadi Rolü ve Çeşitlendirme Stratejileri” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1-2): 23-58.
  • DiMaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields” American Sociologi- cal Review, 48:147-160.
  • DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) “Interest and Agency in İnsti- tutional Theory”, Zucker, L.G. (ed.) Institutional patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Cambridge, Ballinger.
  • Duymedjian, R. ve Rüling, C.C. (2010) “Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Manage- ment Theory” Organization Studies, 31(2):133-151.
  • Dündar, C. (2008) Özel Arşivinden Belgeler ve Anılarıyla Vehbi Koç: 1961-1976, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Dündar, C. (2006) Özel Arşivinden Belgeler ve Anılarıyla Vehbi Koç, İstanbul, Doğan Kitap.
  • Eisenstadt, S.N. (1980) “Cultural Orientations, Insti- tutional Entrepreneurs, and Social Change: Comparative Analysis of Traditional Civiliations” American Journal of Sociology, 85:840-869.
  • Emirbayer, M. ve Mische, A. (1998) “What Is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology, 103(4):962-1023.
  • Glaser, B.G. ve Strauss, A (1967) The Discovery of Gro- unded Theory, Chicago, Aldine.
  • Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analy- sis, Mill Valley, Sociology Press.
  • Glynn, M.A. ve Abzug, R. (2002) “Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Na- mes” Academy of Management Journal, 45(1):267-280.
  • Gökşen, N. S. ve Üsdiken B. (2001) “Uniformity and Diversity in Turkish Business Groups: Effects of Scale and Time of Founding” British Journal of Management, 12(4):325-340.
  • Gölbaşı, Ş. (2007) “TÜSİAD’ın Söylemleri Aracılığıyla Toplumu İnşa Girişimlerinin 24 Ocak Kararları ve İzleyen Süreç Bağlamında Eleştirel Bir İncelemesi” Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Antalya, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bi- limler Enstitüsü.
  • Greenwood, R. ve Hinnings, C.R. (1996) “Unders- tanding Radical Organizatonal Change: Bringing Togat- her the Old and the New Institutionalism” Academy of Management Review, 21:1022-154.
  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. ve Suddaby, R. (2008) Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Hughes, E.C. (1936) “The Ecological Aspect of Insti- tutions” American Sociological Review, 1:180-189.
  • Jepperson, R.L. (1991) “Institutions, Institutional Ef- fects and Institutionalism” Powell ety al (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  • Khanna, T. ve Rivkin, J.W. (2001) “Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Gruops” Strategic Mana- gement Journal, 22(1):45-74.
  • Kıraç, C. (1996) Anılarımla Patronum Vehbi Koç, İs- tanbul, AD Yayıncılık.
  • Koç, V. (1973) Hayat Hikâyem, İstanbul, APA Ofset Basımevi.
  • Koç, V. (1984) Hatıralarım, Görüşlerim, Öğütlerim Vehbi Koç (1973-1987), İstanbul, Vehbi Koç Vakfı.
  • Länsisalmi, H., Peiró, J. ve Kivimäki, M. (2004) “Grounded Theory in Organizational Research” Gillian et al.(eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Orga- nization Research, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Lawrence, T.B. ve Suddaby, R. (2006) “Institutions and Institutional Work”, Clegg et al. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies,London, Sage Publu- cations.
  • Lawrence, T.B., Leca, B., ve Zilber, T.B. (2013) “Ins- titutional Work: Current Research, New Directions and Overlooked Issues” Organization Studies, 34(8): 1023- 1033.
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. ve Leca, B. (2010) “Ins- titutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Or- ganization” Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1):52-58.
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. ve Leca, B. (2009) Institu- tional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations Lawrence et al.(eds.) New York, Cambrid- ge University Press.
  • Lawrence, TB, Hardy, C. ve Phillips, N. (2002) “Ins- titutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-institutions” Academy of Mana- gement Journal, 45(1): 281-290.
  • Locke, K.D. (2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Meek, V.L. (1988) “Organizational Culture: Origins and Weaknesses” Organization Studies, 9(4): 453-473.
  • Meyer, J.W. ve Rowan, B. (1977) “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure As Myth and Cere- mony” American Journal of Sociology, 83:340-363.
  • Myers, M.D. (2009) Qualitative Research in Business & Management, London, Sage Publucations
  • Oliver, C. (1992) “The Antecedents of the Institutio- nalisation” Organization Studies, 13:563-588.
  • Oxford Dictionaries (2014) http://www.oxford- dictionaries.com/definition/english/businessman, (09.01.2014).
  • Özen, Ş. ve Yeloğlu, H.O. (2006) “Bir Örgüt Kimliği Olarak “Holding” Adının İnşası ve Aşınması: Eşanlı Kurumsallaşma ve Çözülme Üzerine Bir Model Önerisi” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1-2):45-84.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evalua- tion Methods 3rd. Edition, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publu- cations
  • Phillips, N. ve Lawrence, T.B. (2012) “The Turn to Work in Organization and Management Theory: Some Implications for Strategic Organization” Strategic Organi- zation, 10(3):223-230.
  • Sargut, A.S. (2001) Kültürler Arası Farklılaşma ve Yö- netim 2. Baskı, Ankara,İmge.
  • Scott, W.R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publucations.
  • Strauss, A.L. ve Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitati- ve Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publucations.
  • Suddaby, R. (2006) “From the Editors: What Gro- unded Theory Is Not” Academy of Management Journal, 49(4):633-642.
  • Türk, E. (2009) TÜSİAD Patronlar Kulübü, İstanbul, Alfa.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü (2014) http://www.tdk. gov.tr/, (10.01.2014).
  • Yediyıldız, B. (1996) “Place of the waqf in Turkish Cultural System” Habitat II Kongresinde Sunulmuş Bildiri, 12 Nisan 1996: İstanbul. 23.01.2014 tarihinde http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~yyildiz/placeofthewaqf. htm adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Whitley, R. (2000). Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems, Oxford, Ox- ford University Press.

Kurumsal İşlerin Analiziyle İşadamı Kavramının Betimlenmesi

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 99 - 110, 01.02.2015

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye bağlamında işadamı kavramının betimlenmesidir. İşadamı kavramı oldukça farklı anlamları içinde barındıran karmaşık bir kavramdır. İşadamı içinde bulunduğu kurumsal çevreyi etkilemekte ve aynı zamanda bu çevreden etkilenmektedir. İşadamı faaliyet gösterdiği kurumsal çevreyi yaratmak, sürdürmek ve yıkmak amacıyla çeşitli kurumsal işler yapmaktadır. Bu çalışmada işadamı kavramı işadamının yürüttüğü kurumsal işler aracılığıyla betimlenmektedir. Amaçlı olarak seçilen kurumsal bir biyografi aracılığıyla, bağlam bağımlı olarak, işadamının öncelikle genel kabul görmüş işadamı tanımını yıktığı, daha sonra işadamı kavramına ilişkin yeni bir anlam üretme çabasına giriştiği ve daha sonraki dönemde de işadamı kavramını sürdürme ve güçlendirme adına farklı kurumsal işleri yerine getirdiği belirlenmiştir

Kaynakça

  • Ahmadjian, C.L. ve Robinson, P. (2001) “Safety in Numbers : Downsizing and the Deinstitutionalization of Pernnanent Employment in Japan” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:622-654.
  • Alakavuklar, O.N., Kılıçaslan, S. ve Öztürk, E.B. (2009) “Türkiye’de hayırseverlikten Kurumsal Sosyal So- rumluluğa Geçiş: Bir Kurumsal Değişim Öyküsü” Yöne- tim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2):103-143.
  • Albert, S. ve Whetten, D.A. (1985) “Organizational Identity” Research in Organizational Behavior, Cummings et al. (eds) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Aldemir, C.M., Arbak, Y. ve Özmen Timurcanday, Ö.N. (2003) “Türkiye’de İşgörme Anlayışı: Tanımı ve Boyutları” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1):5-28.
  • Anhier, H.K. (2001) “Foundations in Europe: A Comparative Perspective” Civil Society Working Paper Series, No:18.
  • Ashforth, B.E. ve Gibbs, B.W. (1990) “The Double- edge of Organizational Legitimation” Organization Scien- ce, 1(2):177-194.
  • Barley, S.R. (1986) “Technology As An Occasion For Structuring: Evidence From Observations of CT Scan- ners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31:78-108.
  • Battilana, J. ve D’Aunno, T. (2009) “Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency” Lawrence et al (eds.) Institutional work: Actors and Agency In Institu- tional Studies of Organization, Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press.
  • Berger, P.L. ve Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Cons- truction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Hammondsworth, Penguin Books.
  • Berker, F. ve Uras, G. (2009) Fikir Üreten Fabrika: TÜSİAD’ın İlk On Yılı 1970-1980, İstanbul, Doğan Ki- tap.
  • Berkman, Ü. ve Özen, Ş. (2007) “Turkish Business System and Managerial Culture: State-Dependency and Paternalism in Transition” Davel et al. (eds), Gestion en Contexte İnterculturel: Approches, Problématiques, Pratiques Et Plongées. (Chapter VI.4), Québec: Presse de l’Université Laval et TÉLUQ/UQAM.
  • Buğra, A. (2006) Devlet ve İşadamları, İstanbul, İleti- şim Yayınları.
  • Cem, İ. (2014) Türkiye’de Geri Kalmışlığın Tarihi, 23. Baskı, İstanbul, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  • Çolpan, A.M. ve Hikino, T. (2008) “Türkiye’nin Büyük Şirketler Kesiminde İşletme Gruplarının İktisadi Rolü ve Çeşitlendirme Stratejileri” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1-2): 23-58.
  • DiMaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields” American Sociologi- cal Review, 48:147-160.
  • DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) “Interest and Agency in İnsti- tutional Theory”, Zucker, L.G. (ed.) Institutional patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, Cambridge, Ballinger.
  • Duymedjian, R. ve Rüling, C.C. (2010) “Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Manage- ment Theory” Organization Studies, 31(2):133-151.
  • Dündar, C. (2008) Özel Arşivinden Belgeler ve Anılarıyla Vehbi Koç: 1961-1976, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Dündar, C. (2006) Özel Arşivinden Belgeler ve Anılarıyla Vehbi Koç, İstanbul, Doğan Kitap.
  • Eisenstadt, S.N. (1980) “Cultural Orientations, Insti- tutional Entrepreneurs, and Social Change: Comparative Analysis of Traditional Civiliations” American Journal of Sociology, 85:840-869.
  • Emirbayer, M. ve Mische, A. (1998) “What Is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology, 103(4):962-1023.
  • Glaser, B.G. ve Strauss, A (1967) The Discovery of Gro- unded Theory, Chicago, Aldine.
  • Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analy- sis, Mill Valley, Sociology Press.
  • Glynn, M.A. ve Abzug, R. (2002) “Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Na- mes” Academy of Management Journal, 45(1):267-280.
  • Gökşen, N. S. ve Üsdiken B. (2001) “Uniformity and Diversity in Turkish Business Groups: Effects of Scale and Time of Founding” British Journal of Management, 12(4):325-340.
  • Gölbaşı, Ş. (2007) “TÜSİAD’ın Söylemleri Aracılığıyla Toplumu İnşa Girişimlerinin 24 Ocak Kararları ve İzleyen Süreç Bağlamında Eleştirel Bir İncelemesi” Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Antalya, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bi- limler Enstitüsü.
  • Greenwood, R. ve Hinnings, C.R. (1996) “Unders- tanding Radical Organizatonal Change: Bringing Togat- her the Old and the New Institutionalism” Academy of Management Review, 21:1022-154.
  • Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. ve Suddaby, R. (2008) Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Hughes, E.C. (1936) “The Ecological Aspect of Insti- tutions” American Sociological Review, 1:180-189.
  • Jepperson, R.L. (1991) “Institutions, Institutional Ef- fects and Institutionalism” Powell ety al (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  • Khanna, T. ve Rivkin, J.W. (2001) “Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Gruops” Strategic Mana- gement Journal, 22(1):45-74.
  • Kıraç, C. (1996) Anılarımla Patronum Vehbi Koç, İs- tanbul, AD Yayıncılık.
  • Koç, V. (1973) Hayat Hikâyem, İstanbul, APA Ofset Basımevi.
  • Koç, V. (1984) Hatıralarım, Görüşlerim, Öğütlerim Vehbi Koç (1973-1987), İstanbul, Vehbi Koç Vakfı.
  • Länsisalmi, H., Peiró, J. ve Kivimäki, M. (2004) “Grounded Theory in Organizational Research” Gillian et al.(eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Orga- nization Research, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Lawrence, T.B. ve Suddaby, R. (2006) “Institutions and Institutional Work”, Clegg et al. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies,London, Sage Publu- cations.
  • Lawrence, T.B., Leca, B., ve Zilber, T.B. (2013) “Ins- titutional Work: Current Research, New Directions and Overlooked Issues” Organization Studies, 34(8): 1023- 1033.
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. ve Leca, B. (2010) “Ins- titutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Or- ganization” Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1):52-58.
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. ve Leca, B. (2009) Institu- tional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations Lawrence et al.(eds.) New York, Cambrid- ge University Press.
  • Lawrence, TB, Hardy, C. ve Phillips, N. (2002) “Ins- titutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-institutions” Academy of Mana- gement Journal, 45(1): 281-290.
  • Locke, K.D. (2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research, London, Sage Publucations.
  • Meek, V.L. (1988) “Organizational Culture: Origins and Weaknesses” Organization Studies, 9(4): 453-473.
  • Meyer, J.W. ve Rowan, B. (1977) “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure As Myth and Cere- mony” American Journal of Sociology, 83:340-363.
  • Myers, M.D. (2009) Qualitative Research in Business & Management, London, Sage Publucations
  • Oliver, C. (1992) “The Antecedents of the Institutio- nalisation” Organization Studies, 13:563-588.
  • Oxford Dictionaries (2014) http://www.oxford- dictionaries.com/definition/english/businessman, (09.01.2014).
  • Özen, Ş. ve Yeloğlu, H.O. (2006) “Bir Örgüt Kimliği Olarak “Holding” Adının İnşası ve Aşınması: Eşanlı Kurumsallaşma ve Çözülme Üzerine Bir Model Önerisi” Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1-2):45-84.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evalua- tion Methods 3rd. Edition, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publu- cations
  • Phillips, N. ve Lawrence, T.B. (2012) “The Turn to Work in Organization and Management Theory: Some Implications for Strategic Organization” Strategic Organi- zation, 10(3):223-230.
  • Sargut, A.S. (2001) Kültürler Arası Farklılaşma ve Yö- netim 2. Baskı, Ankara,İmge.
  • Scott, W.R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publucations.
  • Strauss, A.L. ve Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitati- ve Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publucations.
  • Suddaby, R. (2006) “From the Editors: What Gro- unded Theory Is Not” Academy of Management Journal, 49(4):633-642.
  • Türk, E. (2009) TÜSİAD Patronlar Kulübü, İstanbul, Alfa.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü (2014) http://www.tdk. gov.tr/, (10.01.2014).
  • Yediyıldız, B. (1996) “Place of the waqf in Turkish Cultural System” Habitat II Kongresinde Sunulmuş Bildiri, 12 Nisan 1996: İstanbul. 23.01.2014 tarihinde http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~yyildiz/placeofthewaqf. htm adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Whitley, R. (2000). Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems, Oxford, Ox- ford University Press.
Toplam 57 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA27NA35MZ
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Ozan Ağlargöz

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Şubat 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Ağlargöz, O. (2015). Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works. Ege Academic Review, 15(1), 99-110.
AMA Ağlargöz O. Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works. eab. Şubat 2015;15(1):99-110.
Chicago Ağlargöz, Ozan. “Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works”. Ege Academic Review 15, sy. 1 (Şubat 2015): 99-110.
EndNote Ağlargöz O (01 Şubat 2015) Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works. Ege Academic Review 15 1 99–110.
IEEE O. Ağlargöz, “Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works”, eab, c. 15, sy. 1, ss. 99–110, 2015.
ISNAD Ağlargöz, Ozan. “Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works”. Ege Academic Review 15/1 (Şubat 2015), 99-110.
JAMA Ağlargöz O. Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works. eab. 2015;15:99–110.
MLA Ağlargöz, Ozan. “Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works”. Ege Academic Review, c. 15, sy. 1, 2015, ss. 99-110.
Vancouver Ağlargöz O. Describing the Concept of Businessman Through Analyzing Institutional Works. eab. 2015;15(1):99-110.