Holografik Organizasyonlar: Organizasyonları Bir Beyin Gibi Düşünmek

Öz

Beyin, insan vücudunun en önemli amaçları için tamamen işlevseldir. Aynı bilgiyi taşıyan ve bu bilginin komşu hücrelere sorunsuz bir şekilde aktarılmasını sağlayan ayrı hücrelerden oluşur. Beynin esnek yapısı, kendi kendini organize etme yeteneği ile sonuçlanır. Organizasyonları bir beyin olarak düşünme metaforu, organizasyonu beynin yaptığı gibi uzun vadede bilgiyi işleyen ve hatta öğrenen bir dizi fonksiyonla karşılaştırır. Beyin olarak düşünme metaforu, bir organizasyonun tüm departmanlarındaki çalışanların kolektif zekasına hitap etmektedir. Organizasyonun tüm departmanlarındaki çalışanlar, yönetimin organize bilgeliği, çalışanların pratik bilgileri ve yönetimin deneyimi ile öğrenen bir organizasyon oluşturmak için kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, beyin olarak organizasyon metaforu, holografik organizasyonlar ve bütünün parçalara ayrılması ilkesi hakkında kısa bir teorik anlayış sağlar. Çalışma ayrıca, örgüt süreçlerinden bütünün parçalara uygulanması, örgütsel DNA ve holistik liderlik gibi konularına değinilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgütsel DNA
• Beyin Metaforu
• Holografik Örgütler
• Holistik Liderler

Holographic Organizations: Thinking Organizastions Like A Brain

Abstract

The brain is fully capable of functioning for the most important purposes of the human body. It consists of separate cells that carry the same information and allow this information to be transferred seamlessly to neighbouring cells. The flexible structure of the brain results in the ability to self-organize. The metaphor of thinking of organizations as a brain compares the organization to a set of functions that process and even learn information over the long term as the brain does. The metaphor of thinking as a brain addresses the collective intelligence of employees in all departments of an organization. Employees in all departments of the organization use the organized wisdom of management, the pratical knowledge of employees and the experience of management to create a learning organization. This study provides a brief theoretical understanding of the organization-as-brain metaphor, holographic organizations, and the principle of the whole into the parts. The study also addresses the application of the whole to the parts, from organizational processes, organizational DNA and holistic leadership.

Keywords

• Organizational DNA
• Brain Metaphor
• Holographic Organizaitons
• Holistic Leaders

Kaynakça

1. Adriani, P. (2001). Diversity, knowledge and complexity theory: Some introductory issues. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2), 257-274.
2. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
3. Arnett, R. C. (1999). Metaphorical guidance: administration as building and renovation. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 80-89.
4. Bach, M. (1989). Public policy issues within an action learning framework (pp.191-212) In: Wright, S. & Morley, D. (Eds.) Learning works: searching for organizational futures, Toronto: the ABL group.
5. Balcı, A. (2006). Yeni paradigmalar ışığında Türkiye eğitim sisteminin örgütlenmesi ve yönetimi. Türk Eğitim Sisteminde Yeni Paradigma Arayışları Sempozyum Bildirileri, (pp. 248-268). Ankara: Pozitif.
6. Balijepally, V. C., DeHondt, G., Sugumaran, V., & Nerur, S. (2014). Value proposition of agility in software development- an emprical investigation. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah.
7. Ball, J. (1997). DNA leadership through goal-driven management. Reston VA, USA: The Goals Institue, Inc. Baskin, K. (1998). Corporate DNA: Learning from life. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
8. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. New York: St. Albans.

9. Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2013). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1-33.
10. Bellini, C. G. P., Pereira, R.d.C.d.F., & Becker, J. L. (2016). Organizational structure and enterprise systems implementation: Theoretical measures and a benchmark for customer teams. Information Technology & People, 29(3), Vol. 3, 527-555.
11. Bonchek, M. (December 19, 2016). How to discover your company’s DNA, Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-to-discover-your-companys-dna?registration=success, 02.09.2022.
12. Booz, A. H. (2005). Organizatinal DNA - about organizational DNA. Booz & Company: Chicago.
13. Byars, J. L. (2009). Holographic leadership: Leading as a way of being, (Unpublished Doctoral Disertation), Antioch University, Program in Leadership and Change.
14. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins Books.
15. Collins, J. (2005). Level 5 leadership: the triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review.
16. Çandır, E. (2005). Örgütsel DNA ve bir uygulama, (Unpublished Master Thesis), Uludağ Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
17. Dhiman, S. (2017). Holistic leadership a new paradigm for today’s leaders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, 45- 53.
19. Döş, I. (2013). School DNA and its transfer. American Journal of Human Ecology, 2(1), 7-15.
20. Esmer, Y. (2020). Örgütsel DNA, (Eds.). Sağır, M., Yönetimde değişen çevreye uyum mekanizmaları, Eğitim Yayınevi, Konya.
21. Goldman, P., Tindal, G., McCullum, N., & Marr, J. (1999). Organizational learning and the culture of reform: operationalizing the “organizations as brains” metaphor, Presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
22. Gustav, J. C. (1992). Critical assessments, (Eds.). Papadopoulos, R. K., The Tavistock Clinic, Vol. 4: Implications and Inspirations, London.
23. Hassani, S., Aghdam, M. R., Davatgar, F., & Shahreza, M. M. N. (2016). The role of cloud computing technology on principle of learning holographic organizations. J. Appl. Environ. Biol.Sci., 6(2S), 213-221.
24. Hoda, R. (2011). Self-organizing agile teams: a grounded theory, (Unpublished Doctoral Disertation), Victoria University.
25. Huber, G. P. (1984). The nature and design of post-industrial organizations. Management Science, 30(8), 928-951.
26. Ilkhani, S., & Rohani, S. A. F. (2021). Factors affecting and providing a model for holographic information Centers. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management, 8(4), 28-37.
27. Kaipa, P., & Milus, T. (2006). Mapping the organizational DNA: A living system approach to organization transformation, India: Presented at the International HR Confluence 2006.
28. Koç Başaran, Y. (2017). Beyin metaforu ve eğitime yansımalar. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 171-188.
29. Koçel, T. (2018). İşletme yöneticiliği. Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
30. Kramer, E.-H., Moorkamp, M., & Visser, M. (2011). Learning to organize and organizing to learn: the case of dutch military expenditionary task forces. The Learning Organization, 28(3), 270-282.
31. Mackenzie, K. D. (1991). The organizational hologram: The effective management of organizational change. Springer Science + Business Media, New York.
32. Manuti, A., & Giancaspro, M. L. (2021). The meaning of the organization or the organization of meaning? metaphors as sensemaking tools to understand organizational change management, testing, psychometrics. Methodology in Applied Psychology, 28, 113-127.
33. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Sage: Beverly Hills.
34. Morgan, G. (1989). Organizational change and new technology, (pp. 47-62) In: Wright, S. & Morley, D. (Eds.) Learning works: searching for organizational futures, Toronto: ABL group, York University.
35. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousands Oaks. Cal.: Sage Publications.
36. Morgan, G. (1998). Yönetim ve örgüt teorilerinde metafor. (G. Bulut, Çev.) İstanbul: MESS Türkiye Metal Sanayicileri Sendikası.
37. Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall.
38. Nafei, W. (2015). The role of organizational DNA in improving organizational performance: A study on the industrial companies in Egypt. International Business Research, 8(1), 118-119.
39. Orlov, J. (2003). The holistic leader: a developmental systemtic approach to leadership. http://www.julieorlov.com/docs/holistic_leader_article.pdf, 01.10.2022
40. Reed, C. G. (2006). Both the parts and whole: leadership and systems thinking, Systems Thinker, https://thesystemsthinker.com/both-the-parts-and-whole-leadership-and-systems-thinking/, 5.12.2022.
41. Ren, M., Hu, Z., and Jain, H. (2016). A conciliation mechanism for self-organizing dynamic small groups. SpringerPlus, 5: 800, 1-23.
42. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline field book strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York.
43. Quatro, S. A., Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2007). Developing holistic leaders: four domains for leadership development and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 427-441.
44. Taggart, J. L. (2009). Holistic leadership. http://www.leadershipworld connect.com/holistic.pdf, 03.09.2022
45. Uğurlu, Z. (2011). Bir örgütsel değişim metaforu olarak Morgan’ın stratejik çekirgeler (termit) metaforu. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2), 119-138.
46. Yaraş, Z., & Boydak Özan, N. (2019). Eğitim kurumlarında liderlikte yeni yönelimlere doğru “holistik liderlik”: ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(6), 655-667.
47. Zoethout, K. (2006). Self-organising processes of task allocation: a multi-agent simulation study, Labyrinth Publications, Ridderkerk.