ÇOK ULUSLU ŞİRKETLERDE KURUMSAL KURAMIN ÖNGÖRDÜĞÜ MEŞRUİYET KAZANMA VE EŞBİÇİMLİLİK ÇABALARINA KOŞUL BAĞIMLILIK KURAMI AÇISINDAN BİR BAKIŞ

Year 2019, , 293 - 315, 28.09.2019

Cem Şen

https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.421251

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, her ne kadar meşruiyet kazanma ve eşbiçimlilik kavramları kurumsal kurama ait kavramlar olsa da, söz konusu kavramların yerel şirketler için taşıdığı anlamın çok uluslu şirketlerde farklı etkilere sahip olabildiği ve koşul bağımlılık faktörlerine göre değişebildiği sorunsalından yola çıkılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, yeni kurumsal kuram kapsamındaki meşruiyet kazanma ve eşbiçimlilik kavramlarının çok uluslu şirketler tarafından nasıl ele alındığı ve uygulamalarının diğer yerel örgütlerden farklı olup olmadığı koşul bağımlılık faktörleri bağlamında tartışılmaktadır. Özellikle gerekli kaynaklara ulaşma konusunda gerektiğinde kendi ana ülkeleri ve onların kurumlarını, gerektiğinde de faaliyet gösterdiği ev sahibi ülkeler ve onların kurumlarını referans alabilen çok uluslu şirketlerin kendi ana ülkelerinden (iç) ve ev sahibi ülkelerden kaynaklanan (dış) bir kurumsal ikilik (institutional duality) yaşadıkları ifade edilebilir. Çalışma ile çok uluslu şirketler için meşruiyet kazanma ve eşbiçimliliğin hayatta kalma şansını artırmanın tek ve gerek şartı olmadığı açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Çok uluslu şirketlerin bu özel durumu, yeni kurumsal kuramın öne sürdüğü kavramlara koşul bağımlılık kuramı çerçevesinde yaklaşılarak örgüt kuramları yazınının zenginleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir.

Keywords

Çok Uluslu Şirketler, Meşruiyet Kazanma, Eşbiçimlilik, Kurumsal Kuram, Koşul Bağımlılık Kuramı

AN OVERVIEW FROM THE CONTINGENCY THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON LEGITIMIZATION AND ISOMORPHISM EFFORTS ENVISAGED BY INSTITUTIONAL THEORY IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Abstract

In this study, although the concepts of gaining legitimacy and isomorphism are the concepts of institutional theory, the problem arises from the problem that the meaning of these concepts for local companies may have different effects on multinational corporations and may vary according to the contingency theory factors. In this regard, the question of how the concepts of legitimacy and isomorphism within the new institutional theory is addressed by multi-national corporations and whether its implementation differs from other local organizations is being debated in terms of context contingency factors. Especially when it comes to accessing the resources, it is necessary for the multi-national corporations, which can refer to the rules and regulations of either their home countries or host countries, which clearly causes duality. It has been tried to explain that for multi-national companies it is not the unique and required the condition to have legitimacy and isomorphism to survive. This particular case of multi-national companies has been led to examine the concepts of institutional theory from the contingency theory perspective, hence contribute to the management and organization theory literature.

Keywords

Multi-National Enterprises, Legitimization, Isomorphism, Institutional Theory, Contingency Theory

References

• Alimadadi, S. ve Pahlberg, C. (2014). A Network view of MNC embeddedness in a politically uncertain market: The case of Turkey. Business and Politics, 16(2), 339-372.
• Alvarez, J.L. (1996). The international popularization of entrepreneurial ideas. S.R. Clegg ve G. Palmer (Ed.). The politics of management knowledge içinde (80-98). London: Sage.
• Aydın, N. (1997). Uluslararası doğrudan yatırıımlar ve ortak girişimler (Joint Ventures), Eskişehir: T.C.Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1002.
• Banalieva E.R. ve Sarathy, R. (2011). A contingency theory of internationalization performance for emerging market multinational enterprises. Management International Review, 51, 593-634.
• Basler, B. (6 Şubat 1989). International report; Marriott defies a Hong Kong custom, the New York Times. Erişim 4 Mart 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/06/business/international- report-marriott-defies-a-hong-kong-custom.html
• Bertalanffy, L.V. (1950). An outline of general system theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 134-165.
• Bolat, T. ve Seymen, O.A. (2006). Yönetim ve örgüt düşüncesinde kurumsalcılık, yeni kurumsalcılık ve kurumsal eşbiçimlilik. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 223-254.
• Blau, P.M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organization. American Sociological Review, 35, 201-218.
• Burns, T. ve Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
• Cantwell, J. ve Iammarino, S. (1998). MNCs, technological innovation and regional systems in the EU: Some evidence in the Italian case. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5(3), 383-408.
• Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and structure, chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Cohen, G. (2006). Barriers to marketing within professional service firms. PhD Thesis, Brunel Business School, Brunel University, London.
• Çakar, M. ve Danışman, A. (2012). Kurumsal kuram. H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları içinde (241-269). Ankara: Beta Basım AŞ.
• Deephouse, D.L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024-1039.
• 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.
• Dimaggio, P.J. ve Powell, W.W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. W.W. Powell ve P.J.
• Dimaggio (Ed.). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis içinde (63-82). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. S.R. Clegg, C.Hardy ve W.R. Nord (Ed.). Handbook of organization studies içinde (57-76), London: Sage Publications.
• Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. London: Sage Publications.
• Donaldson, L. (2008a). The conflict between contingency and institutional theories of organizational design. R.M. Burton, B.H. Eriksen, D.D. Håkonsson, T. Knudsen ve C.C. Snow (Ed.). Designing organizations: 21st century approaches içinde (3-20). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
• Donaldson, L. (2008b). Resolving the conflict between contingency and institutional theories of organizational design. R.M. Burton, B.H. Eriksen, D.D. Håkonsson, T. Knudsen ve C.C. Snow (Ed.). Designing organizations: 21st century approaches içinde (21-40). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
• Dunning, J.H. (2000). The Eclectic Paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2), 163-190.
• Duncan, R.B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environment and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313-327.
• Eisenhardt, K.M. ve Schoonhoven, C.B. 1996. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7, 136-150.
• Emery, F. ve Trist, E. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21-32.
• Giddens, A. (1996). The consequences of modernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Gökşen, N.S. (2010). Makrokurumsal bakiş açisi: Bir değerlendirme. A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları içinde 331-378. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Gupta, A.K. ve Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 768-792.
• Harzing, A.W. ve Sorge, A. (2003). The relative impact of country-of-origin and universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multinational enterprises: World-wide and European perspectives. Organization Studies, 24(2), 187-214.
• Hasselbladh, H. ve Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: a critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21(4), 697-720.
• Hillman, A. ve Hitt, M.A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation level and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 825-842.
• Hillman, A.J ve Wan, W.P. (2005). The determinants of MNE subsidiaries' political strategies: Evidence of institutional duality. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 322-340.
• İlhan, T. (2005). Uluslararası ortak girişimlerde şirket içi tutarlılık ve yerel eşbiçimlilik baskılarını yönetmede farklılaşan stratejik insan kaynakları uygulamalarının rolü. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 81-119.
• Jarblad, A. (2003). The international popularization of entrepreneurial ideas: The international popularization of entrepreneurial ideas. Luleå University of Technology C Extended Essay-047, Luleå, İsveç.
• Koene, B. ve Ansari, S. (2011). Institutional change and the multinational change agent. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(4), 511-531.
• Kostova, T. ve Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
• Kostova, T. ve Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215-233.
• Kostova, T., Roth, K. ve Dacin, M.T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994-1006.
• Lawrence, P.R. ve Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47.
• Mathews, J.A. (2006). Dragon Multinationals: New Players in 21st Century Globalization. Asia Pacific J Manage, 23, 5-27.
• McIntyre, J. ve Ivanaj, V. (2009). Multinational enterprises and sustainable development: A review of strategy process research. J. McIntyre, S. Ivanaj ve V. Ivanaj (Ed.). Multinational enterprises and the challenge of sustainable development içinde (3-27), Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
• Meyer, J.W. ve Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
• Meyer, J.W. ve Scott, W.R. (1983). Organizational environments-rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Morgan, G. (1994). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mueller, F. (1994). Societal effect, organizational effect, and globalization. Organization Studies, 15(3), 407-28.
• Neuman, M. (2012).The image of the institution: a cognitive theory of institutional change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 139-156.
• Numerof, R.E., Ott, B. ve Abrams, M. (2010). Grow it globally. Marketing Management, 19(1), 30-35.
• Oksay, S. (1998). Çokuluslu şirketler teorileri çerçevesinde, yabancı sermaye yatrımlarının incelenerek, değerlendirilmesi. DTM Dergisi, 3(8), 18-39.
• Özen, Ş. (2010). Yeni kurumsal kuram: örgütleri çözümlemede yeni ufuklar ve yeni sorunlar. A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları içinde (237-330). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Perrow, C. (1967). Framework for comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194-208.
• Popadiuk, S., Rivera, E.R. ve Bataglia, W. (2014). Heterogeneity of isomorphic pressures: Intertwining the resource-based view and the neoinstitutional approach. Brazilian Administrative Review (BAR), 11(4), 455-475.
• Post, J.E., Lawrence, A.T., Weber, J. ve Weber J. (1996). Business and society: corporate strategy, public policy, ethics, 8th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D., Hinings, C. ve Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91-115.
• Robertson, R. (1998). Globalization: social theory and global culture. London: Sage Publications.
• Rosenzweig, P.M ve Singh, J.V. (1991). Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 340-361.
• Roth, K. ve Kostova, T. (2003). The use of multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of Management, 29(6), 883-902.
• Sally, R. (1995). States and firms, multinational enterprises in institutional competition. London: Routledge.
• Sargut, A.S. (2009). Türkiye’de işletme yönetimi eğitiminin kurumsal çerçevesi: Çeşitlilikten eşbiçimliliğe. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 4(1), 51‐63.
• Sargut, A.S. (2010). Yapısal koşul bağımlılık kuramının örgütsel çevre kavramları bağlamındaki yeri. A.S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları içinde (35-75). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Sargut, A.S. (2012). Kamu örgütleri kuramını arıyor: Kurumsal bir yaklaşım. B. Aykaç, Ş. Durgun ve H. Yayman (Ed.). Türkiye'de kamu yönetimi içinde (239-254). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Scherer, A.G., Palazzo, G. ve Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259-284.
• Scott, W.R. ve Meyer, J.W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: propositions and early evidence. W.W. Powell ve P.J. Dimaggio (Ed.). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis içinde (108-140). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Scott, W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, W.R. (2003). Institutional carriers: Reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 879-894.
• Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 270-277.
• Sklair, L. (2002). Capitalism and development. London: Routledge.
• Sambharya, R.B. ve Lee, J. (2014). Renewing dynamic capabilities globally: An empirical study of the world’s largest MNCs. Management International Review, 54, 137-169.
• Song, S. (2015). Inter-country exchange rates and intra-firm trade flow within global network of multinational corporations. Management International Review, 54, 1-22.
• Suddaby, R. ve Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
• Tihanyi, L. ve Roath, A. S. (2002). Technology transfer and institutional development in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of World Business, 37(3), 188-198.
• Tseng, C. (2015). Determinants of MNC’s knowledge inflows to subsidiaries: A perspective on internalization advantages. Management International Review, 55, 119-150.
• Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Toffler, A. (1971). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
• Türker, M. ve Örerler, E.O. (2004). Türk şirketerinin küresel şirket hâline getirilmesi yolları. İstanbul: İTO Yayınları No. 2004-60.
• Tüzün, İ.K. (2012). Yönetimde erken dönem: klasik ve neoklasik yaklaşımlar. H.C. Sözen ve H.N. Basım (Ed.). Örgüt kuramları içinde (11-33). Ankara: Beta Basım AŞ.
• UN Statistics Division, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database, Erişim 22 Şubat 2016, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp
• Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms, the social structuring and change of business systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Whitley, R. (2000). The institutional structuring of innovation strategies: Business systems, firm types and patterns of technical change in different market economies. Organization Studies, 2 (5), 855-886.
• Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 341-363.