Comparative Evaluation of the Deputy Ministry and Undersecretary Positions from the Perspective of Spontaneous Isomorphism: The Case of Turkey

Öz

While public sector organizations often appear to deconstruct commercial firms and nonprofits, government agencies themselves have only occasionally been studied as subjects of institutional pressures. This study aims to examine the Presidential Government System, its applications based on institutional isomorphism theory, by dealing with coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes and normative pressures and to find a suitable adaptation model for the ‘deputy minister’ by considering the changing ministerial administrative practices in Turkey and used a qualitative approach in its methodology. Consequently, ‘neither mimetic, normative isomorphism nor coercive isomorphism is sufficient to model’ the deputy minister. Rather, the concept of ‘spontaneous isomorphism’ (Sağsan et al., 2011) was used in the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• New institutionalism
• Institutional isomorphism
• Public sector
• Deputy Minister
• Undersecretariat
• Spontaneous isomorphism

SPONTANE İZOMORFİZM PERSPEKTİFİNDEN BAKAN YARDIMCILIĞI VE MÜSTEŞARLIK POZİSYONLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRMALI OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Kamu sektörü örgütlerinin genellikle ticari firmaları ve kâr amacı gütmeyen kuruluşları yapı bozuma uğrattığı görülse de devlet kurumlarının kendileri sadece ara sıra kurumsal baskıların öznesi olarak incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmada Cumhurbaşkanlığı Hükûmet Sistemi’ni, kurumsal izomorfizm kuramına dayalı uygulamalarını, zorlayıcı izomorfizm, mimetik süreçler ve normatif baskılarla ele alarak inceleme ve Türkiye’deki değişen bakanlık idari uygulamalarını göz önünde bulundurarak ‘bakan yardımcılığına’ uygun bir uyum modeli bulma amaçlanmaktadır ve çalışmanın metodolojisinde nitel bir yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak bakan yardımcılığını modellemek için ne mimetik, normatif izomorfizm ne de zorlayıcı izomorfizm yeterli değildir. Bunun yerine çalışmada ‘spontane izomorfizm’ (Sağsan ve diğ., 2011) kavramı kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeni Kurumsalcılık
• Kurumsal İzomorfizm
• Kamu Sektörü
• Bakan Yardımcılığı
• Müsteşarlık
• Spontane İzomorfizm

Kaynakça

1. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Sage.
2. Ataman, G. (2003). Örgüt tasarımında yeni tekniklerin yayılım dinamikleri. Öneri Dergisi, 5(19), 13-19.
3. Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociological theory, 28(2), 150-166.
4. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Isomorphism in the practice of corporate social responsibility: Evidence of an institution and its decline. University of Bath School of Management Working Paper Series, 10, 1-43.
5. Borgatti, S. P., & Grosser, T. J. (2015). Structural equivalence: Meaning and measures. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, (2nd ed., Vol. 23), 621-625. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
6. Bölükbaşı, M. O. (2021). Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sistemindeki bakan yardımcısı ile önceki sistemdeki bakan yardımcısı ve müsteşarın kıyaslanması. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 287-303.
7. Bresser, R. K., & Millonig, K. (2003). Institutional capital: Competitive advantage in light of the new institutionalism in organization theory. Schmalenbach Business Review, 55(3), 220-241.
8. Coşkun, Y., ve Yorgancıoğlu, C. (2021). Westminster modeline ve cumhurbaşkanlığı hükûmet sistemine dayalı bakan yardımcılığı için karşılaştırmalı analiz. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, (46), 75-122.

9. Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of management journal, 40(1), 46-81.
10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 147-160.
11. Edwards, J. R., Mason, D. S., & Washington, M. (2009). Institutional pressures, government funding and provincial sport organisations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(2), 128-149.
12. Fennell, M. L. (1980). The effects of environmental characteristics on the structure of hospital clusters. Administrative science quarterly, 25(3), 485-510.
13. Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Fogarty, T. J., & Dirsmith, M. W. (2001). Organizational socialization as instrument and symbol: An extended institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 247-266.
15. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Walter W. Powell & Paul J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, (ss.232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of public administration research and theory, 14(3), 283-307.
17. Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative science quarterly, 454-479.
18. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
19. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Harvard university press.
20. Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational administration quarterly, 37(5), 637-661.
21. Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative science quarterly, 593-627.
22. Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of management, 30(1), 29-48.
23. Jaffee, D. (2001). Organizational theory: Tension and change (1st. ed.). UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
24. Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual review of sociology, 4(1), 455-484.
25. Lawrence, T. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of management, 25(2), 161-187.
26. McKenzie, R. D., & Hawley, A. H. (1968). On human ecology: Selected writings edited and with an introduction by Amos H. Hawley. University of Chicago Press.
27. Meyer, J. W. (1979). The impact of the centralization of educational funding and control on state and local organizational governance. Stanford University, Program report No: 79-B20.
28. Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. L. (2000). The ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological theory, 18(1), 100-120.
29. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Walter W. Powell & Paul J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, (ss.41-62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 653-683.
31. O’Brien, D., & Slack, T. (2004). The emergence of a professional logic in English rugby union: The role of isomorphic and diffusion processes. Journal of Sport Management, 18(1), 13-39.
32. Peters, B. G. (2001). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. London: Continuum.
33. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
34. Popadiuk, S., Rivera, E. R., & Bataglia, W. (2014). Heterogeneity of isomorphic pressures: Intertwining the resource-based view and the neoinstitutional approach. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 11, 455-475.
35. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago press.
36. Sağsan, M., Eyüpoğlu, Ş., & Saner, T. (2011). Institutional isomorphism between the TRNC and Turkey for e-government strategy: What encourages spontaneous isomorphism?. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 3(1), 121-132.
37. Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In Walter W. Powell & Paul J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, (ss.164-182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Sobacı, M. Z., Miş, N., & Köseoğlu, Ö. (2018). Türkiye’nin yeni yönetim modeli ve Cumhurbaşkanlığı teşkilatı. Seta Perspektif, 206, 1-6.
39. Sozen, H. C., & Sagsan, M. (2009). Social networks versus technical networks: How different social interaction patterns effect information system utilization in the organizations. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(7), 65-72.
40. Srinivasan, M., & Davis, L. V. (1991). A shelter: An organization like any other?. Affilia, 6(1), 38-57.
41. Şaylan, G. (1983). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde devlet yapısının evrimi. İçinde Cumhuriyet dönemi Türkiye ansiklopedisi, 2 (ss. 388-410). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
42. Tingling, P., & Parent, M. (2002). Mimetic isomorphism and technology evaluation: Does imitation transcend judgment?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 5.
43. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative science quarterly, 22-39.
44. Turan, M. (2018). Türkiye’nin yeni yönetim düzeni: Cumhurbaşkanlığı hükümet sistemi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 7(3), 42-91.
45. White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American journal of sociology, 81(4), 730-780.
46. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American journal of sociology, 87(3), 548-577.
47. Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? In Lynee G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations, (ss.3-21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.