Organizational identity: A study on postgraduate theses prepared in the departments of business administration

Öz

The purpose of this research is to analyze the postgraduate theses on organization identity through the content analysis. Theses published in the Department of Business Administration are included in the research as a sample. In this study, the research methods adopted in theses, variables studied, the sectors applied, and the scales of organization identity used as a measurement tool are assessed. In this regard, 133 theses dating between 2003-2020 accessed through the National Thesis Center in the Council of Higher Education are utilized. As a result of this research, it is observed that organizational identity has been mostly studied by examining the variables of leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational trust, job satisfaction, organizational justice, organizational commitment, turnover intention, organizational support, performance, organizational cynicism respectively. 96,25% of theses are quantitative, 3,85% are qualitative and 0,96% are mixed. Researchers of theses which quantitative methods are applied conducted questionnaires mostly during the examination of organizational identity and as a data collection tool, the scale of organizational identity of Meal and Ashford (1992) is dominantly implemented. With regards to the distribution of industries in which organizational identity research is completed are private sector (59,23%), while other sectors are public (31,54%), public-private partnership (8,46%) and non-profit organizations (0,77%). It has been observed that in recent years, the number of postgraduate studies on organizational identity has substantially increased.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organizational Identity
• Business Administration
• Graduate Theses
• Content Analysis

Örgütsel kimlik kavramı üzerine işletme ana bilim dalında hazırlanan lisansüstü tezlere yönelik bir inceleme

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacını, örgütsel kimlik konusunda yapılan lisansüstü tezlerin içerik analizi ile incelenmesi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmaya İşletme Ana Bilim Dalında hazırlanan tezler örneklem olarak dahil edilmiştir. Mevcut araştırmada, tezlerde kullanılan araştırma yöntemleri, çalışılan değişkenler, uygulanan sektörler ve ölçme aracı olarak kullanılan örgütsel kimlik ölçekleri incelenerek durum tespiti yapılmıştır. Bu kapsamda YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi (YÖK Tez) internet sitesinde yer alan 2003-2020 yıllarına ait 133 tezden faydalanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, örgütsel kimlikle birlikte en çok sırasıyla liderlik, örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı, örgütsel güven, iş tatmini, örgütsel adalet, örgütsel bağlılık, işten ayrılma niyeti, örgütsel destek, performans ve örgütsel sinizm değişkenlerinin çalışıldığı görülmektedir. Tezlerin %96,25’inin nicel, %3,85’inin nitel ve %0,96’sının ise karma yöntemlerle gerçekleştiği tespit edilmiştir. Nicel yöntemle hazırlanan tezlerde araştırmacıların örgütsel kimliği ölçmede anket yöntemini ağırlıklı olarak kullandığı ve veri toplama aracı olarak Meal ve Ashforth (1992)’a ait örgütsel kimlik ölçeğini sıklıkla kullandığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Örgütsel kimlik çalışmalarının uygulandığı sektörlerin dağılımında ise en fazla özel sektörde (%59,23) araştırma yapıldığı görülmüştür. Kamu sektörü (%31,54), kamu-özel sektörü (%8,46) ve sivil toplum kuruluşu (%0,77) uygulama yapılan diğer sektörlerdir. Örgütsel kimlik konusunda yapılan lisansüstü çalışmaların sayısının son yıllarda artan bir ilgi ile devam ettiği görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgütsel Kimlik
• İşletme
• Lisansüstü Tezler
• İçerik Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Ashforth, B. E. (2016). Distinguished scholar invited essay: Exploring Identity and identification in organizations: Time for Some course corrections. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 361–373. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1548051816667897
2. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.ObO13e31812e5535
3. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–777. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137292254_3
4. Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00229
5. Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-1.
6. Chreim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication- based perspective. Human Relations, 55(9), 1117–1137. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0018726702055009022
7. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094849
8. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393235

9. Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493
10. George, A. L. (2003). “İçerik çözümlemesinde nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar”, İletişim araştırmalarında içerik çözümlemesi, (Der. ve Çev.: Murat S. Çebi), Alternatif Yayınları, Ankara.
11. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393936
12. Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00384.x
13. Johnson, W. L., Johnson, A. M., & Heimberg, F. (1999). A Primary- and second-order component analysis of the organizational identification questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 159–170.
14. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004002
15. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(13), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
16. Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 626–658.
17. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492
18. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/259262
19. Stoner, J., Perrewé, P. L., & Hofacker, C. (2011). The development and validation of the multi-dimensional identification scale (MDIS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1632–1658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00770.x
20. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 30(4), 558–564. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/349494
21. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.
22. Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale’. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris: Larousse.
23. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G., Eds., , 2nd Edition, Nelson Hall, Chicago, 7-24. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24).
24. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
25. Ülbeği, İ.D. (2018). Örgütsel özdeşleşme: Meta analiz çalışması, 2. Uluslararası Multidisiplinler Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, s:73-92, Akademisyen Yayınevi
26. Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social Identification among school teachers: dimensions, foci, and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000889
27. Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904774202135.