Sürdürülebilirlik Anlatıları: Örgütler Arası Projelere Sosyal Yapılandırmacı Bir Bakış

Öz

Küresel sorunların çözümü için örgütler arası iş birliklerinin gereği, Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları aracılığıyla vurgulanmaktadır. Ne var ki, örgütler arası zihniyet farklılıklarının doğuracağı sosyal paradokslar, farklı örgüt türleri arasındaki projelerin başarısızlık riskini artırmaktadır. Özellikle şirket vakıflarıyla sivil toplum kuruluşlarının etkili iş birliklerini nasıl kurabildikleri konusundaki bilgi kısıtlıdır. Bu süreci aydınlatmak üzere, başarılı örgütler arası projeler yürütmüş olan LEGO Foundation ve Right to Play arasındaki iş birliği tekil vaka analizi yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Sürdürülebilirlik akımını şekillendiren sosyal yapılandırmacı çerçeveyle uyumlu bir biçimde, ikincil veri kaynakları soyutlamacı anlatı paradigması üzerinden analiz edilmiştir. Bu analizler aracılığıyla, ilgili örgütler arası iş birliği kurulurken ortak seçimi için kriz anlatısından, ortak değerlendirmesi için kimlik anlatısından, projeyi başlatmak için ise aşkınlık anlatısından faydalanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu anlatı türlerinin tespiti, örgütler arası proje başlatma sürecinin etkililiğini artırarak Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçlarına erişmeyi kolaylaştırabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Örgütler arası iş birliği
• Sivil toplum kuruluşları

Sustainability Narratives: A Social Constructivist Perspective on Interorganizational Projects

Öz

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals emphasize the solution of global problems to necessitate interorganizational collaborations. However, organizational differences tend to underpin social paradoxes in these collaborations, which increase the risk that interorganizational projects will fail. Humanity has limited knowledge about how corporate foundations and non-governmental organizations in particular can establish effective collaborations. Using a single case study design to address this question, the study examines the collaboration  between the LEGO Foundation and Right to Play, which carried out successful interorganizational projects. The study then analyzes the narratives that are available from secondary data sources through the abstractionist paradigm to identify generalizable patterns. Organizations have been identified to use crisis narratives while selecting partners, identity narratives to evaluate potential collaborations, and transcendence narratives to initiate interorganizational projects. Acknowledging these types of narrative may help reach the Sustainable Development Goals by increasing the effectiveness of interorganizational collaborations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability
• Interorganizational collaborations
• NGOs

Kaynakça

1. Aim2Flourish (2002). Play for fun and play to learn. Erişim adresi (2 Mayıs 2022): https://aim2flourish. com/innovations/play-for-fun-and-play-to-learn. google scholar
2. Amtoft, M. (1994). Storytelling as a support tool for project management. International Journal of Project Management, 12(4), 230-233. doi:10.1016/0263-7863(94)90047-7 google scholar
3. Ashman, D. (2001). Civil society collaboration with business: Bringing empowerment back in. World Development, 29(7), 1097-1113. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00027-4 google scholar
4. Auerbach, C. ve Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York, NY: NYU Press. google scholar
5. Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A. ve Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary organizing: Promises, processes, problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703-1719. doi:10.1177/0170840616655982 google scholar
6. Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106-126. doi:10.2307/2393432 google scholar
7. Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Sage Publications. google scholar
8. Boje, D. M. (2014). Storytelling organizational practices: Managing in the quantum age. New York, NY: Routledge. google scholar

9. Braun, T. ve Sydow, J. (2019). Selecting organizational partners for interorganizational projects: The dual but limited role of digital capabilities in the construction industry. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 398-408. doi:10.1177/8756972819857477 google scholar
10. Brown, L. D. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44(8), 807-831. doi:10.1177/001872679104400804 google scholar
11. Burke, C. M. ve Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235-1258. doi:10.1177/0018726715610809 google scholar
12. Clay, J. A. ve Norris-Tirrell, D. (2010). Strategic collaboration in public and nonprofit administration: A practice-based approach to solving shared problems. New York, NY: CRC Press. google scholar
13. Czarniawska, B. (1997). A narrative approach to organization studies. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Sage Publications. google scholar
14. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Sage Publications. google scholar
15. Didham, R. J. ve Paul, O. M. (2015). The role of education in the sustainable development agenda: Empowering a learning society for sustainability through quality education. IGES (Ed.) Achieving the sustainable development goals: From agenda to action (s. 93-129) içinde. Kanagawa, Japonya: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. google scholar
16. Gehringer, T. (2020). Corporate foundations as partnership brokers in supporting the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustainability, 12(18), 7820. Doi:10.3390/su12187820 google scholar
17. Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Sage Publications. google scholar
18. Gergen, M. M. ve Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. N. K. google scholar
19. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (p. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. google scholar
20. Germain, O. ve Aubry, M. (2019). Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(1), 2-5. Doi:10.1108/IJMPB-03-2019-215 google scholar
21. Graf, N. F. ve Rothlauf, F. (2012). Firm-NGO collaborations. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 82(6), 103-125. Doi:10.1007/s11573-012-0628-2 google scholar
22. Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research/ Historische Sozialforschung, 33(3), 33-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20762299 google scholar
23. Herlin, H. ve Pedersen, J. T. (2013). Corporate foundations: catalysts of NGO-business partnerships? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 50, 58-90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.50.58 google scholar
24. Hinds, P. S., Vogel, R. J. ve Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 408-424. Doi:10.1177/104973239700700306 google scholar
25. Jain, P. ve Jain, P. (2020). Are the sustainable development goals really sustainable? A policy perspective. Sustainable Development, 28(6), 1642-1651. Doi:10.1002/sd.2112 google scholar
26. Jones C. ve Lichtenstein B. (2008). Temporary inter-organizational projects: How temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty. S. Cropper , M. Ebers, C. Huxman ve P. Smith Ring (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (s. 231255) içinde. Oxford, Birleşik Krallık: Oxford University Press. google scholar
27. Laszlo, C. (2008). Sustainable value: How the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
28. Laszlo, C. ve Brown, J. S. (2014). Flourishing enterprise. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
29. Laszlo, C. ve Cooperrider, D. L. (2010). Creating sustainable value: a strength-based whole system approach. T. Thatchenkery, D. L. Cooperrider ve M. Avital (Ed.), Positive design and appreciative construction: From sustainable development to sustainable value, vol. 3 (p. 17-33). Bingley, Birleşik Krallık: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Doi:10.1108/S1475-9152(2010)0000003006 google scholar
30. LEGO Foundation (2021). Annual report 2021. Erişim adresi (2 Mayıs 2022): https://cms. learningthroughplay.com/media/hi3fel5y/lego-foundation-annual-report-2021-33.pdf google scholar
31. LEGO Foundation (2022). Play prepares children for the future. Any future. Erişim adresi (3 Mayıs 2022): https://learningthroughplay.com/how-we-play/play-prepares-children-for-the-future-any-future/ google scholar
32. Lu, S. ve Yan, H. (2007). A model for evaluating the applicability of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 25(2), 164-170. Doi:10.1016/j. ijproman.2006.09.009 google scholar
33. Lüscher, L. S. ve Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. Doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2008.31767217 google scholar
34. Mantere, S., Aula, P., Schildt, H. ve Vaara, E. (2013). Narrative attributions of entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 459-473. Doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.12.001 google scholar
35. McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R. ve Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, eco literacy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20. Doi:10.1890/ES13-00075.1 google scholar
36. Moshtari, M. ve Vanpoucke, E. (2021). Building successful NGO-business relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(3), 104-129. Doi:10.1111/jscm.12243 google scholar
37. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. Doi:10.2307/259350 google scholar
38. Pratt, M. G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B. E. ve Ravasi, D. (Ed.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of organizational identity. Oxford, Birleşik Krallık: Oxford University Press. google scholar
39. Rey-Garcia, M., Sanzo-Perez, M. J. ve Âlvarez-Gonzâlez, L. I. (2018). To found or to fund? Comparing the performance of corporate and noncorporate foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 514-536. Doi:10.1177/0899764017750492 google scholar
40. Rhodes, C. ve Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 167-188. Doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00112.x google scholar
41. Right to Play (2019). 2019 annual report. Erişim adresi (5 Mayıs 2022): https://righttoplaydiag107.blob. core.windows.net/rtp-media/documents/2019_AnnualReport_SinglePages_LowRes_PDF.pdf google scholar
42. Right to Play (2022a). How the LEGO Foundation and Right To Play are energizing education in Ghana. Erişim adresi (5 Mayıs 2022): https://www.righttoplayusa.org/en/news/creating-lifelong-learners-using-play/ google scholar
43. Right to Play (2022b). Our mission. Erişim adresi (5 Mayıs 2022): https://www.righttoplay.ca/en-ca/ about-us/ google scholar
44. Rosile, G. A., Boje, D. M., Carlon, D. M., Downs, A. ve Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 557-580. Doi:10.1177/1094428113482490 google scholar
45. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. ve Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64. Doi:10.1080/194 16520.2016.1162422 google scholar
46. Senge, P. (2014). Foreword by Peter Senge. C. Laszlo and J. S. Brown (Ed.). Flourishing enterprise (s. vii-x). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
47. Sköldberg, K. (1994). Tales of change: Public administration reform and narrative mode. Organization Science, 5(2), 219-238. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2635016 google scholar
48. Smith, W. K. ve Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. Doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 google scholar
49. Strange, T. ve Bayley, A. (2008). OECD insights sustainable development linking economy, society, environment: Linking economy, society, environment. Paris, Fransa: OECD Publishing. google scholar
50. Sydow, J. ve Braun, T. (2018). Projects as temporary organizations: An agenda for further theorizing the interorganizational dimension. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 4-11. Doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.012 google scholar
51. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Erişim adresi (6 Mayıs 2022):https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf . google scholar
52. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Erişim adresi (6 Mayıs 2022): https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000245656 google scholar
53. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Global education monitoring report. Inclusion and education: All means all. Paris, Fransa: UNESCO. google scholar
54. Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S. ve Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 495-560. Doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963 google scholar
55. Vernis, A., Iglesias, M., Sanz, B. ve Saz-Carranza, A. (2006). Nonprofit organizations: Challenges and collaboration. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
56. Wasielewski, P. L. (1985). The emotional basis of charisma. Symbolic Interaction, 8(2), 207-222. Doi:10.1525/si.1985.8.2.207 google scholar
57. Westhues, M. ve Einwiller, S. (2006). Corporate foundations: Their role for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(2), 144-153. Doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550019 google scholar
58. Winch, G. M. ve Sergeeva, N. (2022). Temporal structuring in project organizing: A narrative perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 40(1), 40-51. Doi: 10.1016/j. ijproman.2021.09.008. google scholar
59. Wharton Risk Center. (2013). Risk management review. Erişim adresi (7 Mayıs 2022): https:// riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WhartonRiskCenter-newsletter_2013.pdf google scholar
60. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, Birleşik Krallık: Oxford University Press. google scholar
61. Yaziji, M. ve Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge, Birleşik Krallık: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
62. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Londra, Birleşik Krallık: Sage Publications. google scholar
63. Zott, C. ve Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70-105. Doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.7 google scholar