Çatışan Kurumsal Mantıkların Etkileşimi Ve Yönetici Tepkileri: Türkiye'de Faaliyet Gösteren Alman Firmaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Örgüt yapıları ve örgütsel süreçler belirli bir kurumsal alan içerisinde ve mantıklar çerçevesinde şekil almaktadır. Thornton ve Ocasio (1999; 2008), Meyer ve Rowan (1977) ve DiMaggio ve Powell’ın (1983) söz konusu alandaki örgütlerin zaman içinde birbirine benzediği ve homojen oldukları tezine karşılık, örgütsel alanda iki ya da daha fazla çelişen mantığın da var olabileceği ve homojenlik yerine heterojenliğin görülebileceği iddiasında bulunmuşlardır. Yine, kurumsal kuram yazınında bir örgütsel alan içinde çoklu, kendi içinde ayrışan ve birbiriyle çelişen kurumsal mantıkların, kuralların ve inançların aynı anda bulunabildiği tartışılagelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı kurumsal mantıkların, gelişmekte olan piyasalarda faaliyet gösteren çokuluslu örgütlerle ne şekilde bağdaştırıldığını ve doğan kurumsal karmaşaya verilen cevapların neler olduğunu incelemektir. Yaygın kurumsal mantığı piyasa mantığı (market logic) olan çokuluslu Alman şirketlerinin, Türkiye gibi gelişmekte olan ve topluluk mantığının (community logic) hâkim olduğu bir ülkede çatışan bu iki mantığı ne şekilde bağdaştırdığı araştırılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurum,Kurumsal Mantıklar,Topluluk Mantığı,Piyasa Mantığ

The Interaction Of Conflicting Institutional Logics And The Responses Of Managers: A Study Of German Firms Operating In Turkey

Öz

Organizational structures and organizational processes are shaped within a specific organizational field and within the framework of logics. Thornton and Ocasio (1999; 2008) have argued that there may be two or more conflicting rhetoric in the organizational field, and heterogeneity can be seen instead of homogeneity, despite the thought of Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983) that the organizations in this field are similar and homogeneous in time. Also, it is argued in institutional theory that clashing and contradictory logics, rules and beliefs can be found at the same time within an organizational field. The aim of this study is to examine how different institutional logics are adapted to multinational organizations operating in emerging markets and the responses given to the emerging institutional chaos. In this study, it is examined how multinational German companies with market logic as widespread institutional logic reconcile both logic and the conflict between them in an emerging country such as Turkey with community logic as its widespread institutional logic.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institution,Institutional Logic,Community Logic Market Logic

Kaynakça

1. Barney, J. B., (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
2. Creed, W. D., DeJordy, R., ve Lok, J., (2010). Being the Change. Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work, Academy of Management Journal, 53.6, 1336-1364.
3. DiMaggio, P. J. ve Powell, W. W., (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48.2, 147-160.
4. DiMaggio, P. J. ve Powell W.W., (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
5. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional Entrepreneurship, Partaking, and Convening. Organization Studies. 26, 383–413.
6. Friedland, R. ve Alford, R. R., (1991). Bringing Society Back in. Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Ed. W. Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P. J., Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 232–266.
7. Forsgren, M., (2008). Theories of the Multinational Firm, Edward Elgar; Cheltenham.
8. Galbraith, J. K., (1987). Economics in Perspective. A Critical History, Mass; Boston. Houghton Mifflin.

9. Gaur, A. S. ve Lu, J. W., (2007). Ownership Strategies and Survival of Foreign Subsidiaries. Impacts of Institutional Distance and Experience, Journal of Management, 33.1, 84-110.
10. Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X. ve Lorente, J. C., (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses, Organization Science, 21.2, 521-539.
11. Khanna, T. ve Palepu, K. G., (2006). Winning in Emerging Markets. A Road Map for Strategy and Execution, Harvard; Harvard Business Press.
12. Kostova, T. ve Roth, K., (2002). Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations. Institutional and Relational Effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45.1, 215-233.
13. Kostova, T. ve Zaheer, S., (1999). Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity. The Case of the Multinational Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24.1, 64-81.
14. Kraatz, M. S. ve E. S. Block. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, ve R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (243-275). London, England: Sage Publications.
15. Marquis, C. ve Battilana, J., (2009). Acting Globally but Thinking Locally? The Influence of Local Communities on Organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 283-302.
16. Meyer J. ve Rowan B., (1977). Institutionalized Organizations. Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83.2, 340-363.
17. Minbaeva, D. B. ve Muratbekova-Touron, M., (2013). Clanism. Definition and Implications for Human Resource Management, Management International Review, 53.1, 109-139.
18. Minbaeva, D., J. Hotho, M. Muratbekova-Touron ve L. Rabbiosi., (2013). Handling Pressures of Community Logic. The Impact of Clan Ties on Recruitment and Selection in Kazakhstan. In AIB 2013 Annual Meeting. Academy of International Business.
19. Newman, K. L., (2000). Organizational Transformation during Institutional Upheaval, The Academy of Management Review, 25.3, 602-619.
20. North, D. C., (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge; UK. Cambridge University Press.
21. Oliver, C., (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review, 15.1, 145-179.
22. Peng, M. D. ve Jiang, Y. (2008). An Institution-based View of International Business Strategy. A Focus on Emerging Economies, Journal of International Business Studies, 39.5, 920-936.
23. Perrow, C., (1986). Complex Organizations. A Critical Essay, 3rd Ed., New York. Random House.
24. Porter M.E., (1980). Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York, NY. Free Press.
25. Reay, T. ve Hinings, C. R., (2005). The Recomposition of an Organizational Field. Health Care in Alberta, Organization Studies, 26.3, 351-384.
26. Ruef, M. ve Scott, R. W., (1998). A Multidimensional Model of Organizational Legitimacy. Hospital Survival in Changing Institutional Environments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43.4, 877-915.
27. Salomon, R. ve Wu, Z., (2012). Institutional Distance and Local Isomorphism Strategy, Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 343-367 Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations, California. Sage Publications.
28. Scott, W. R., (2004). Institutional Theory. Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program. April 2007.
29. Chapter prepared for K.G. Smith ve M. A. Hitt (Ed.). Great Minds in Management. The Process of Theory Development. Oxford UK. Oxford University Press.
30. Scott, W. R. ve Meyer, J. W., (1991). The Organization of Societal Sectors. Propositions and Early Evidence.
31. W.W. Powell ve P.J. DiMaggio (Der.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 108-140. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.