Buradasınız

KURUMSAL TEORİ VE İŞLETMELERİN KURUMSALLAŞMASI

Institutional Theory and Institutionalization of Organizations

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Institutional theory, one of the main theories that examine the interactions between an organization and its environment, explains the reasons why organizations are institutionalizing. Researchers have done many surveys related to this theory. However, they haven’t put forward any abstract propositions on how organizations might institutionalize. This literature survey aims to fill this void. Due to the interactions with their environments, organizations are exposed to three main pressures: cognitive, regulative, and normative. In order to respond to these pressures, managers are making decisions to adapt their behaviors and restructuring and improve their processes and structures. In doing so, managers desire to increase their resources, reach stability, adapt to their environment and achieve legitimacy. To reach these goals which are extremely important to survive and gain a competitive advantage, organizations institutionalize by formalization, professionalization, consistency, accountability, and strong organizational culture.
Abstract (Original Language): 
İşletme çevre ilişkisini açıklayan kurumsal teori ile ilgili yapılan çok araştırma olmasına rağmen işletmelerin nasıl kurumsallaşacağı somut olarak ortaya konmamıştır. Keşifsel bir araştırma olan bu makale ile bu boşluğun doldurulması hedeflenmektedir. Kurumsallaşma işletmelerin çevresel aktörlerle etkileşimi ile birlikte bilinçsel, düzenleyici ve normatif baskılar sonucunda kararlarını, eylemlerini, süreçlerini ve yapılarını bu baskılara cevap vermek amacıyla yapılandırmaları ve geliştirmeleridir. Bunu yaparak işletmeler kaynaklarını artırmayı, dengeye ulaşmayı ve korumayı, çevreye uyum sağlamayı ve meşrulaşmayı amaçlamaktadırlar. İşletmeler formalleşmeyi sağlayarak, işletme eylem ve kararlarında tutarlılık oluşturarak, güçlü bir örgüt kültürü geliştirerek, hesap verebilir olarak ve profesyonelleşerek kurumsallaşmaktadır. Böylece yaşamlarını sürdürebilmekte ve rekabet avantajı elde edebilmektedirler.
1-22

REFERENCES

References: 

1. ADLER, Paul S. ve Bryan BORYS (1996), “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling
and Coercive”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (March), 1, 61-89.
2. ALFRED, Kieser (1989), “Organizational, Institutional, and Societal Evolution:
Medieval Craft Guilds and the Genesis of Formal Organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (December), 4, 540-564.
3. BOONS, Frank ve Lars STRANNEGARD (2000), “Organizations Coping with
Their Natural Environment”, International Studies of Management &
Organization, 30 (Fall), 3, 7-17.
4. BOYNTON, Andrew C. ve Bart VICTOR (1991), “Beyond Flexibility: Building
and Managing the Dynamically Stable Organization”, California
Management Review, 34 (Fall), 1, 53-66.
5. BURNS, Lawton R. ve Douglas R. WHOLEY (1993), “Adoption and
Abandonment of Matrix Management Programs: Effects of Organizational
6. Characteristics and Inter-organizational Networks”, Academy of
Management Journal, 36 (February), 1, 106-138.
7. COHEN, Aaron ve Yardena KOL (2004), “Professionalism and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: An Empirical Examination among Israeli Nurses”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 4, 386-405.
8. D’AUNNO, Thomas, Melissa SUCCI ve Jeffrey A. ALEXANDER (2000), “The
Role of Institutional and Market Forces in Divergent Organizational
Change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (December), 4, 679-703.
9. FELDMAN, Daniel C. (1984), “The Development and Enforcement of Group
Norms”, The Academy of Management Review, 9 (January), 1, 47-53.
10. FERRELL, O. C. ve Steven J. SKINNER (1988), “Ethical Behavior and
Bureaucratic Structure in Marketing Research Organizations”, Journal of
Marketing Research, 25 (February), 1, 103-109.
11. FORD, Jeffrey D. ve Deborah A. SCHELLENBERG (1982), “Conceptual Issues of
Linkage in the Assessment of Organizational Performance”, The Academy of
Management Review, 7 (January), 49-58.
12. FOX-WOLFGRAMM, Susan J., Kimberly B. BOAL ve James G. HUNT (1998),
“Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of
First-order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 43 (March), 1, 87-126.
13. GOTTLIEB, Jonathan Z. ve Jyotsna SANZGIRI (1996), “Towards an Ethical
Dimension of Decision Making in Organizations”, Journal of Business
Ethics, 15 (December), 12, 1275-1285.
14. GREWAL, Rajdeep ve Ravi DHARWADKAR (2002), “The Role of the
Institutional Environment in Marketing Channels”, Journal of
Marketing, 66 (July), 3, 82-97.
15. HALL, Richard H. (1968), “Professionalization and Bureaucratization”, American
Sociological Review, 33 (February.), 1, 92-104.
16. HOFFMAN, Andrew J. (1999), “Institutional Evolution and Change:
Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry”, Academy of
Management Journal, 42 (August.), 4, 351-371.
17. KIMBERLY, John R. (1979), “Issues in the Creation of Organizations: Initiation,
Innovation, Institutionalization,” Academy of Management Journal, 19/9
(September), 437-457.
18. LANGAN-FOX, JanIce ve Philomena TAN (1997), “Images of a Culture in
Transition; Personal Constructs of Organizational Stability and Change”,
Journal Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70 (September), 3,
273-293.
19. LAWRENCE, Thomas B., Monika I. WINN ve P. Devereaux JENNINGS (2001),
“The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization”, The Academy of
Management Review, 26 (October), 4, 624-644.
20. MCNALLY, Regina (2002), “The Institutionalization of Relationship Marketing”,
American Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings, 13, 179-184.
21. NORBURN, David, Sue BIRLEY, Mark DUNN ve Adrian PAYNE (1990), “A
Four Nation Study of the Relationship Between Marketing Effectiveness,
Corporate Culture, Corporate Values, and Market Orientation”, Journal of
International Business Studies, 21,3, 451-468.
22. PRUZAN, Peter (1998), “From Control to Values-Based Management and
Accountability”, Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (October), 13, 1379-1394.
23. RUERKERT, Robert W., Orville C. Walker, Jr., ve Kenneth J. ROERING (1985),
“The Organization of Marketing Activities: A Contingency Theory of
Structure and Performance”, Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter), 13-25.
24. SCOTT, W. Richard (1987), “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (December), 4, 493-511.
25. SELZNICK, Philip (1996), “Institutionalism Old and New”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41 (June), 2, 270-277.
26. SLATER, Stanley F. ve John C. NARVER (1995), “Market Orientation and the
Learning Organization”, Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.
27. STAGGENBORG, Suzanne (1988), “The Consequences of Professionalization and
Formalization in the Pro-choice Movement”, American Sociological Review,53 (August), 4, 585-606.
28. SWAIT, Joffre ve Tülin ERDEM (2002), “The Effects of Temporal Consistency of
Sales Promotions and Availability on Consumer Choice Behavior”, Journal
of Marketing Research, 39 (August), 3, 304-320.
29. WALLACE, Jean E. (1995), “Organizational and Professional Commitment in
Professional and Nonprofessional Organizations”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1995, 40 (June), 2, 228-255.
30. YILMAZ, Cengiz, Lütfihak ALPKAN ve Ercan ERGÜN (2005), “Cultural
Determinants of Customer- and Learning-Oriented Value Systems and Their
Joint Effects on Firm performance”, Journal of Business Research, 58, 1340-
1352.
31. ZAJAC, Edward J. ve James D. WESTPHAL (2004), “The Social Construction of
32. Market Value: Institutionalization and Learning Perspectives on Stock
33. Market Reactions”, American Sociological Review, 69 (June), 3, 433-457.
34. ZUCKER, Lynne G. (1977), “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural
Persistence,” American Sociological Review, 42 (October), 5, 726-743

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com