Social Enterprises' Quest for Legitimacy through Organizational Identity

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 259 - 274, 31.01.2022

Hava Yaşbay Kobal

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.904477

Cited By: 1

Öz

The aim of the study of social enterprises in Turkey, is to reveal the patterns of organizational identity and that they are investigating them in an effort to obtain a kind of legitimacy with through organizational identity. The data obtained from interviews with thirteen social entrepreneurs were analyzed in NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis program. The results show that the central characteristics of the social enterprises in the sample are gathered under the social mission theme. The most frequently emphasized words were found to be "woman" and "social", supporting the social mission theme. The distinctive features of social enterprises in the sample are expressed in terms of "sincerity" and "inclusiveness". Therefore, it can be stated that the characteristics that social enterprises use to distinguish themselves from others are gathered around the same concepts. Similar characteristics of social enterprises are defined by "social benefit" and "organic organizational structure". As a result of the analysis, the ongoing characteristics of social enterprises were collected under concepts such as "sharing", "innovation" and "goodness". Considering the results of the research regarding legitimacy, it has been determined that social enterprises' establishment of a legitimate organizational identity would benefit them to gain more cognitive legitimacy and then moral legitimacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Identity, Legitimacy, Social Enterprise, Social Entrepreneurship

Sosyal Girişimlerin Örgütsel Kimlik Yoluyla Meşruiyet Arayışları

Öz

Araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye’de sosyal girişimlerin örgütsel kimlik örüntüsünü ortaya çıkarmak ve örgütsel kimlik aracılığıyla ile ne tür bir meşruiyet elde etme çabası içinde olduklarını araştırmaktır. On üç sosyal girişimci ile yapılan görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler NVivo 12 nitel veri analizi programında analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, örneklemde yer alan sosyal girişimlerin merkezi özelliklerinin sosyal misyon teması altında toplandığını göstermektedir. En sık vurgulanan kelimelerin de sosyal misyon temasını destekler nitelikte “kadın” ve “sosyal” kelimeleri olduğu saptanmıştır. Örneklemde yer alan sosyal girişimlerin ayırt edici özellikleri “samimiyet” ve “kapsayıcılık” kavramları ile benzer özelliklerinin ise “sosyal fayda” ve “organik örgüt yapısı” ile tanımlandığı saptanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda sosyal girişimlerin süregelen özellikleri “paylaşım”, “yenilik” ve “iyilik” gibi kavramlar altında toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın meşruiyet ile ilgili sonuçlarına bakıldığında sosyal girişimlerin meşru bir örgüt kimliği inşa etmelerinin daha çok bilişsel meşruiyet ve daha sonra ahlaki meşruiyet elde etmelerine yarar sağlayacağı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgütsel Kimlik, Meşruiyet, Sosyal Girişim, Sosyal Girişimcilik

Kaynakça

• Albert, S. ve Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings ve B. M. Straw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 263-295). Greenwich: JAI Press.
• Aldrich, H. ve Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/258740
• Ağlargöz, O. (2011). Anadolu üniversitesi iktisadi ve idari bilimler fakültesi ve mühendislik-mimarlık fakültesi örgütsel kimliklerinin fenomenografik durum çalışmalarıyla analizi (Doktora Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
• Ashforth, B. ve Mael, F. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. In J. A. C. Baum ve J. E. Dutton (Eds.) Advances in the strategic management (pp. 19- 64), Greenwich: JAI Press.
• Balmer, J. M. T. (1994). The BBC's corporate identity: Myth, paradox and reality. Journal of General Management, 19, 33-47. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709401900303
• Bitektine, A. ve Haack, P. (2015). The macro and the micro of legitimacy: Towards a multi-level theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49-75. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318
• Blau, P. ve Scott, R. (1962). Formal organizations. Scranton: Chandler Publishing Company.
• Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N. ve Mezias, J. S. (2012). The quest for cognitive legitimacy: Organizational identity crafting and internal stakeholder support. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 189-207. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.645053
• Brown, A. D. (2001). Organization studies and identity: Towards a research agenda. Human Relations, 54(1), 113-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701541014
• Brunninge, O. (2005). Organizational self- understanding and the strategy process (Doctoral Dissertation). Strategy Dyanamics in Scania and Handelsbanken. Jönköping: JIBS
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak Kılıç E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Carpenter, M. A. (1994). Organizational identity and strategic decision making: The decision to divest. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Dallas.
• Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
• Chreim, S. (2000). The evolution of organizational identity: A discursive study (Doctoral Dissertation). École des Hautes Études Commerciales, Montreal.
• Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M. ve Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/ becoming/organizing. Organization, 12(2), 147-168. doi:10.1177/1350508405051186
• Clegg, S. R., Rhodes, C. ve Kornberger, M. (2007). Desperately seeking legitimacy: Organizational identity and emerging industries. Organization Studies, 28(4), 495-513. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606067995
• Corley, K. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture: Hierarchical differences in perception of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 57(9), 1145-1177. doi: : 10.1177/0018726704047141
• Corley, K., Harquil, C. V., Pratt, M., Glynn, A., Fiol, C. M. ve Hatch, M. J. (2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 85-99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605285930
• 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Dutton, J. E. ve Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/256405
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
• Elsbach, K. ve Kramer, R. (1996). Members response to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442-476. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393938
• Elsbach, K. ve Sutton, R.I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression. Management Theories, 35(4), 699-738. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/256313
• Fiol, M., Huff, A. ve Sarason, Y. (1996). Operationalizing a new definition of organizational identity: Beyond central, distinctive and enduring. Paper presented at the Identity III Conference. Utah.
• Foreman, P. ve Whetten, D. (2002). Members’ identification with multiple– identity organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618-635. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493
• Gioia, D., Majken S. ve Kevin G. C. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/259263
• Glaser, B. ve Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Aldine: Chicago, IL.
• Glynn, M. A. ve Abzug, R. (2002), Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3069296
• Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M. B. ve Taşğın, S. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• He, H. ve Baruch, Y. (2009). Transforming organizational identity under institutional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 575-599. doi: 10.1108/09534810910997014
• Johnson, J. ve Holub, M. J. (2003). Questioning organizational legitimacy: The case of U.S. expatriates. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 269-293. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075143
• LeCompte, M. D. ve Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052001031
• Lounsbury, M. ve Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 545-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.188
• Levitt, B. ve Nass, C. (1994). Organizational narratives and the person/identity distinction. Annals of the International Communication Association, 17(1), 236-246. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1994.1167886
• Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J. ve Sitkin, S. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392251
• McMillan, J. J. (1987). In search of the organizational persona: A rationale for studying organizations rhetorically. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization communication: Emerging perspectives II (pp. 21-45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
• Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. California: Sage Publication.
• Pfeffer, J. ve G. R. Salancik. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. California: Stanford University Press.
• Pratt, M. G. ve Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/259261
• Scott, S. G. ve Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/259262
• Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
• Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
• Sillince, J. A. A. ve Brown, A. D. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(12), 1829-1856. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709336626
• Strauss, A. ve Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage Publications.
• Strauss, A. ve Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
• Thoger Christensen, L. ve Cheney, G. (1994) Articulating identity in an organizational age. Annals of the International Communication Association, 17(1), 222-235. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1994.11678885
• Whetten, D. A. ve Godfrey, P. C. (1998). Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. Foundations for organizational science. London: A Sage Publications Series.
• Whetten, D. A. ve Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 41(4), 393- 414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302238775
• Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291200
• Yıldırım, A. ve H. Şimşek. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.