Participation and the Essence of Organisation Theory

Yıl 2019, Sayı: 4, 18 - 26, 31.12.2019

Selçuk Gürçam

Öz

This article departed from the fact that participation is one of the most critical parameters in organisation theory. This article evaluated the issue of participation in the context of organisation theory. It analysed this term concerning modern theories of organisation, post-modernism discussion, and changing nature of reality. In the search for such analysis, the central argument was to test whether “participation” matters in changing the essence of modernist reality. In doing so, the article referred to the discussion on post-modernity, the shift from Fordism to post-Fordism, globalisation, governance, ethical concerns. After mentioning such issues, the analysis included types of participation in administration in organisational life in the last part. Thus, the argument gained a more concrete basis. The article argued that despite the broadness of discussion, participation proved to be fruitful in the context of organisation theory. The article concluded with the suggestion that to construct a theory of participation, complete emancipation of paradigms and approaches from their inherent modernist capabilities, which result in the transfer of the same essence to every theorisation, is necessary.

Anahtar Kelimeler

participation, organisation theory, psychic prison, classical organisation theory, neoclassical organisation theory

Kaynakça

• Chell, E. (1985). Participation and Organization. London: Macmillan Press.
• Cludts, S. (1999). Organisation Theory and the Ethics of Participation. Journal of Business Ethics, No. 21, (pp. 157-171).
• Collins, D. (1997). The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of Participatory Management as an Organisational System. Organisation Science, Vol. 8, No. 5, (pp. 489-507).
• Eren, E. (2000). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi. İstanbul: Beta.
• Farmer, D. J. (2001). Mapping Anti-Administration: Introduction to Symposium. Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 23, No. 4.
• Feldheim, M. A. (2005). Mary Parker Follett: Lost and Found-Again, and Again, and Again, In. T. D. Lynch &.P. Cruise (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach, (2nd ed., pp. 418-436), FL: CRC Press
• Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative Experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.
• Follett, M. P. (194?). Dynamic Administration. Metcalf, Henry C. & Urwick, L. (Eds.). New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
• Follett, M. P. (1996). The Giving of Orders, In Shafritz, J.M. & Ott, J.S. (Eds.). Classics of Organization Theory, (pp. 156-162). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Fox, C. and Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern Public Administration: Towards Discourse. London: Sage
• Gergen, K. J. (1992), Organisation Theory in Post-modern Era, in M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking Organisation: New Directions in Organizational Theory and Analysis, London: Sage.
• Goodwin, M. and Painter, J. (2000). Local Government After Fordism: A Regulationist Perspective. In G. Stoker (ed.). The New Politics of British Local Governance, (pp. 33-53). London: Macmillan Press.
• Frederickson, H. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 42(6), 501-508.
• Hancock, P. and Tyler, M. (2001). Work, Postmodernism and Organization. London: Sage.
• Jessop, B. (2000). Governance Failure. In G. Stoker (ed.). The New Politics of British Local Governance, (pp. 11-32). London: Macmillan Press.
• Lukacs, G. (1971). History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press.
• Marini, F. (1971). Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Chandler Publishing Company. Marshall, G. S., and White Jr, O. F. (1990). The Blacksburg Manifesto and the post-modern debate: Public administration in a time without a name. The American Review of Public Administration, 20(2), 61-76.
• Marx, K. (1844). “Economic and philosophical manuscripts.” In Early Writings: 279-400. R. Livingstone and G. Benton (trans.) Harmondsworth: Penguin (1975).
• Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 605-622.
• Morse, R. S. (2006). Prophet of Participation: Mary Parker Follett and Public Participation in Publişc Administration, in Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2006: 1–32
• Murat, G. (2001). Yönetime Katılma, in Güney, S. (Ed.). Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, (pp. 257-283).
• Ostrom, V. (1973). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
• Rees, D. W. and Porter, C. (1998), Employee Participation and Managerial Style, in Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30, No. 5, (pp. 165-170).
• Scott-Ladd, B. and Marshall, V. (2004), Participation in Decision Making: A Matter of Context?. In The Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol 25 No. 8, pp. 646-662
• Şener, H. E. (2005). Kamu Yönetiminde Katılım ve Çoğulculuk. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Vol 35, No. 4, (pp. 1-22).
• Şengül, T. (2001). Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset, WALD, (pp. 43-60).
• Stoker, G. (2000). “Introduction”. In G. Stoker (ed.). The New Politics of British Local Governance, (pp. 1-11). London: Macmillan Press.
• Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers
• Üstüner, Y. and Keyman, F. (2003), Globalleşme, Katılımcı Demokrasi ve Örgüt Sorunu, in Aykaç, B., Durgun, Ş. & Yaman, H. (Eds.), Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi, Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi, (pp. 299-317).
• Weber, M. (2015). “Bureaucracy”. in Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters (eds), Weber’s rationalism and modern society: New translations on politics, bureaucracy, and social stratification. Springer.