Kurumsal karmaşıklık ve yönetim mekanizmaları: Türk elektrik sektörü örneği

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3, 489 - 505, 31.07.2022

Çağatay Özpınar , Mustafa Özseven

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.946287

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türk elektrik enerjisi sektöründe 2001 sonrası alanda gelişen çoklu kurumsal mantıkların yönetiminde ne tür mekanizmaların kullanıldığını ortaya koyabilmek için yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmada Türk elektrik sektöründe geliştiği görülen çevreci, kamu ve piyasacı kurumsal mantıkların hangi mekanizmalarla yönetildiği gösterilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada Çukurova Bölgesinde yerleşik 2 firmadan toplanan verilerle araştırma sorusuna yanıt aranmıştır. Bu doğrultuda veriler to planırken yüz yüze görüşmeler ve doküman incelemeleri yapılmıştır. Verilerin analiz edilmesiyle çoklu kurumsal mantıkların etkisi altındaki örgütlerin aşılama (grafting) melezleşme (hybridization) ve köprüleme (bridging) mekanizmalarını kullandıkları tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal karmaşıklık, çoklu kurumsal mantıklar, Kurumsal karmaşıklığın yönetiminde kulllanılan mekanizmalar, Türk elektrik sektörü

Institutional complexity and governance mechanisms: The case of Turkish electricity sector

Öz

This study has been carried out to reveal what kinds of mechanisms have been used in the management of institutional complexity in the Turkish electricity sector where multiple institutional logics have been effective since 2001. In this study, especially, it has been shown that how companies has coped with the conflictual demands of the environmental, public and market institutional logics. Qualitative research methods have been used in the study. An answer to the research question has been produced with the data collected from 2 companies in the Cukurova Region of Turkey. The data has been collected with face-to-face interviews and document examinations. The research results have indicated that the organizations have used grafting, hybridization, and bridging mechanisms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Institutional complexity, multiple institutional logics, mechanisms in the management of institutional complexity, Turkish electricity sector

Kaynakça

• Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
• Battilana, J. & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing–Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.
• Carmichael, T. & Cunningham, N. (2017). Theoretical Data Collection and Data Analysis with Gerunds in a Constructivist Grounded Theory Study. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 15(2), 59-73.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
• Çubukçu, M. (Sunucu), and Yetkin, M. (Yönetmen) (2018). Küresel Isınma, İklim Değişikliği ve Dünyayı Bekleyen Riskler. Pasaport Programı, NTV. Access Address: https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/pasaport/, (05.03.2019).
• Doğru, C. (2010). A View to the Restructuring Process of the Electricity Market in Turkey. Papers on Social Science, 01 / 2010.
• Durand, R. & Jourdan, J. (2012). Jules or Jim: Alternative Conformity to Minority Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6).
• Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. in W. W. Powell – P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. (p. 232-263).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31.
• Greenwood, R. & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.
• Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R. & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.
• Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27–48.
• Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journals, 56(1), 137-159.
• Kraatz, M. S. & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: (p. 243-275). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Kumbur, H., Özer, Z., Özsoy, D.H. & Avcı, E. D. (2019). Türkiye’de Geleneksel ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynaklarının Potansiyeli ve Çevresel Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması. Mersin Üniversitesi, Çevre Mühendisliği Bölümü, 1-7.
• Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
• Marquis, C. & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive La Resistance: Competing Logics and the Consolidation of U.S. Community Banking Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799-820.
• McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in A Drug Court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165-196.
• Mitzinneck, B. C. & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Managing Value Tensions in Collective Social Entrepreneurship: The Role of Temporal, Structural, and Collaborative Compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 381–400.
• Pache, A-C. & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling As a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
• Pratt, M. G. & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42.
• Purdy, J. M. & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting Logics, Mechanisms of Diffusion, and Multilevel Dynamics in Emerging Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355-380.
• Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P. & Glaser, V. (2019). Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all!. In T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis, & J. Mair (Eds.), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Research in the Sociology of Organizations Volume 59, 201-216.
• Scott, C. & Medaugh, M. (2017). Axial Coding. in J. Matthes, C. Davis, & R. Potter (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1-2.
• Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T. & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932-970.
• Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
• Smith, W. K. & Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional Complexity and Paradox Theory: Complementarities of Competing Demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 455-466.
• Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation (TETC-TEİAŞ) (2019). Türkiye Elektrik Üretim – İletim İstatistikleri. Access Address: https://www.teias.gov.tr/tr-TR/ - (15.02.2019).
• Thornton, P. H. & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
• Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Turkish Statistical Institute (2019). Access Address: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/ UstMenu.do?metod=temelist. (15.02.2019).
• Yavuz, H., Gürkan, F. & Şimşek, S. (2017). Enerji Sektörünün Osmanlı ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihindeki Gelişimi ve Yasal Süreç. Access Address: https://docplayer.biz.tr/2675328-Enerji-sektorunun-osmanli-ve-turkiye-cumhuriyeti-tarihindeki-gelisimi-ve-yasal-surec.html - (25.03.2019).
• York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J. & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging Winds: Logic Hybridization in the Colorado Wind Energy Field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579-610.
• Westphal, J. D. & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Explaining Institutional Decoupling: The Case of Stock Repurchase Programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 202-228.
• Official Gazette (1984). Türkiye Elektrik Kurumu Dışındaki Kuruluşların Elektrik Üretimi, İletimi, Dağıtımı ve Ticareti ile Görevlendirilmesi Hakkında Kanun, O. G. Issue: 18610, Law No: 3096, 4 Aralık 1984, Ankara.,
• Official Gazette (2001). Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumunun Teşkilat ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun, O. G. Issue: 24335, Law No: 4628, 20 Şubat 2001, Ankara.
• Official Gazette (2003). Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Mali Kontrol Kanunu, O. G. Issue: 25326, Law No: 5018, 10 Aralık 2003, Ankara.
• http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/ (30.01.2019).