ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOCRACY STUDIES IN TURKIYE: A REVIEW OF POSTGRADUATE THESES

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 27 - 45, 30.06.2024

Nihal Arda Akyıldız

https://doi.org/10.18221/bujss.1389587

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to examine the postgraduate theses on organisational democracy by content analysis. Forty-one theses from 1993-2023 in the National Thesis Centre of the Council of Higher Education (YOK) were analysed. The most studies in master's theses were conducted in 2022 and in doctoral theses in 2019-2020. It was determined that the most frequently studied variables in master's theses were organisational democracy, democracy, organisation, organisational commitment; in doctoral theses, organisational democracy, democracy, organisational opposition, perception of organisational democracy. It was found that 89,66% of master's theses were quantitative and 6,90% were mixed method; 75% of doctoral theses were quantitative and 25% were mixed method. It is understood that Geçkil and Tikici's (2013) Organisational Democracy and Meyer-Allen's (1993) Organisational Commitment Scales were used to measure organisational democracy in master's theses prepared with quantitative method. In doctoral theses, Geçkil and Tikici (2013)'s Organisational Democracy, Basım and Şeşen (2006)'s Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and Kassing (2000)'s Organisational Opposition Scale were used. Master's theses on organisational democracy (n= 15) were prepared in the public sector and doctoral theses (n= 6) were prepared as mixed. While 34,48% of the master's theses were prepared in the Departments of Educational Sciences and Business Administration, 58,33% of the doctoral theses were prepared in the Department of Business Administration. The study is expected to provide new perspectives to researchers by revealing the developments in the field of organisational democracy in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Democracy, Organization, Organizational Democracy, Content Analysis, Graduate Theses.

TÜRKİYE’DE ÖRGÜTSEL DEMOKRASİ ÇALIŞMALARI: LİSANSÜSTÜ TEZLERE YÖNELİK BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Çalışmada, örgütsel demokrasi konusunda yapılmış olan lisansüstü tezlerin içerik analizi ile incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) Ulusal Tez Merkezinde yer alan 1993-2023 yıllarına ait 41 tez analiz edilmiştir. Yüksek lisans tezlerinde en fazla çalışma 2022 yıında, doktora tezlerinde 2019-2020 yıllarında yapılmıştır. Yüksek lisans tezlerinde en sık çalışılan değişkenlerin örgütsel demokrasi, demokrasi, örgüt, örgütsel bağlılık; doktora tezlerinde ise örgütsel demokrasi, demokrasi, örgütsel muhalefet, örgütsel demokrasi algısı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Yüksek lisans tezlerinin %89,66’sının nicel, %6,90’ının karma yöntemle; doktora tezlerinin %75’inin nicel ve %25’inin karma yöntemle yapılmıştır. Nicel yöntemle hazırlanan yüksek lisans tezlerinde örgütsel demokrasiyi ölçmek için Geçkil ve Tikici (2013)’nin Örgütsel Demokrasi, Meyer-Allen (1993)’ın Örgütsel Bağlılık Ölçeğinin kullanıldığı anlaşılmaktadır. Doktora tezlerinde ise Geçkil ve Tikici (2013)’nin Örgütsel Demokrasi, Basım ve Şeşen (2006)‘nin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ile Kassing (2000)’in Örgütsel Muhalefet Ölçeğinin kullanıldığı anlaşılmaktadır. Örgütsel demokrasi konulu yüksek lisans tezlerinin (n= 15) kamu sektöründe doktora tezlerinin ise (n=6) karma olarak hazırlanmıştır. Yüksek lisans tezlerinin %34,48’i Eğitim Bilimleri ve İşletme Anabilim Dalında hazırlanırken, doktora tezlerinin %58,33’ü İşletme Anabilim Dalında hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmanın Türkiye’de örgütsel demokrasi alanındaki gelişmeleri ortaya koyarak araştırmacılara yeni bakış açıları kazandırması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Demokrasi, Örgüt, Örgütsel Demokrasi, İçerik Analizi, Lisansüstü Tezler.

Kaynakça

• Ahmed, K., Adeel, A., Ali, R. and Rehman, R. U. (2019). Organizational democracy and employee outcomes: The mediating role of organizational justice. Business Strategy & Development, 2(3), 204-219.
• Aksoy Kürü, S. and Aksoy, G. (2021). A review of postgraduate theses on ethical leadership. Ardahan University IIBF Journal, 3(2), 102-111.
• Akyıldız, N. A. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of graduate theses on biophilic design. Urban Academy- Journal of Urban Culture and Management, 16(2), 879-904.
• Altıntaş, M. and Özata, M. (2023). The effect of organizational democracy on organizational commitment: A research on education employees. Ordu University Institute of Social Sciences Journal of Social Sciences Research, 13(1), 379-410.
• Bakan, I., Kara, E. and Güler, B. (2017). The effects of organizational democracy perception on employees' intrapreneurship performance: A field study in hotel enterprises in Marmaris. Hak-Is International Journal of Labour and Society, 6(14), 115-138.
• Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A. and Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2), 192-201.
• Battilana, J., Fuerstein, M. and Lee, M. (2018). New prospects for organizational democracy? How the joint pursuit of social and financial goals challenges traditional organization a design. S. Rangan (Ed.). In Capitalism beyond mutuality?:Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science (pp. 256-288). Oxford University Press.
• Bourke, S. and Holbrook, A. P. (2013). Examining PhD and research masters theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 407-416.
• Cheney, G., Straub, J., Speirs-Glebe, L., Stohl, C., Degooyer, D., Whalen, S., Garvin-Doxas, K. and Carlone, D. (1998). Democracy and communication at work: An interdisciplinary review. Communication Yearbook, 21(1), 35-92.
• Clarke, M. (2011). Organizational democracy, ethics and leadership: The mediating role of organizational politics. Leadership, 7(4), 415-433
• Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2005). What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics: A Europan Review, 14(1), 6-13.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th Edition). Pearson Education-SAGE Publications.
• Collom, E. (2001). Clarifying the cross-class support for workplace democracy. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 45, 71-103.
• Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M. Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Semetko, H. A., Skaaning, S. E., Staton, J. and Teorell, J. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247-267.
• Çopur, Z. and Baskan, G. A. (2020). The relationship between organizational democracy and organizational cynicism: A research on lecturers. Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 61-72.
• Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. N. K.
• Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), In The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Sage Publications Ltd.
• Diener, R. B. (2011). Positive psychology as social change. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
• Erkal Coşan, P. and Altın Gülova, A. (2014). Organizational democracy. Management and Economics 21(2), 231-248.
• Forcadell, F. J. (2005). Democracy, cooperation and business success: The case of mondragon corporacion cooperativa. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 255-274.
• Geçkil, T., İleri, Y. Y., Kaya, Ş. D. and Karadağ, Ş. (2016). The relationship between organizational democracy perceptions and organizational psychological capital levels of physicians and nurses. International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences, 2(3), 818-835.
• Geçkil, T. and Şendoğdu, A. A. (2021). The impact of perceived organizational democracy on the quality of work life: An investigation in the banking sector. Anemon Mus Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 497-507.
• Geçkil, T. and Tikici, M. (2015). Organizational democracy scale development study. Journal of Amme Administration, 48(4), 41-78.
• Geçkil, T. and Tikici, M. (2016). Hospital employees organizational democracy perceptions and its effects on organizational citizenship behaviors. Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences, 3(2), 123-136.
• George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Gerçek, M. and Ziğaloğlu, D. (2023). Job crafting studies in Türkiye: A review of postgraduate theses. Optimum Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 10(2), 443-468.
• Han, K. S. and Garg, P. (2018). Workplace democracy and psychological capital: A paradigm shift in workplace. Management Research Review, 41(9), 1088-1116.
• Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.
• Harrison, J. S. and Freeman, R. E. (2004). Special topic: Democracy in and around organizations: Is organizational democracy worth the effort? Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(3), 49-53.
• Işık, M. (2017). Perception of organizational democracy in public institutions: The case of Is-Kur Isparta provincial directorate. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 22, 1661-1672.
• Kerr, A. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81-97.
• Kerr, J. L. and Caimano, V. F. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81-97.
• Kesen, M. (2015a). Investigating the effects of organizational democracy and organizational identification on job satisfaction: A field study on retail industry. International Refereed Academic Social Sciences Journal, 19(3), 61-89.
• Kesen, M. (2015b). The effects of organizational democracy on employee performance: Mediating role of organizational identification. Çankırı Karatekin University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 6(2), 535- 562.
• Manville, B. and Ober, J. (2003). Beyond empowerment: Building a company of citizens. Harward Business Review, Motivating People January, 81(1), 48-53.
• McCaffrey, G. (1972). Industrial democracy. Industrial Relations, 27(3), 307-333. Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 34, 918-938.
• Oral Ataç, L. and Köse, S. (2017). The relationship between organizational democracy and organizational opposition: A research on white collar employees. Istanbul University Journal of Business Faculty, 46(1), 117-132.
• Özbezek, B. D. and Paksoy, H. M. (2022). A research on the effect of organizational democracy on the level of organizational silence. Journal of Business, Economics and Management Research, 5(1), 80-101.
• Pausch, M. (2013). Workplace democracy: From a democratic ideal to a managerial tool and back. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(1), 1-19.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & Evaluation methods. (3rd Edition). Sage Publications.
• Pilcher, N. (2011). The UK postgraduate masters dissertation: An ‘Elusive Chameleon’. Teaching in Higher Education 16(1), 29-40.
• Powley, E. H., Fry, R. E., Barret, F. J. and Bright, D. S. (2004). Dialogic democracy meets command and control: Transformation through the appreciative inquiry summit. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 67-80.
• Rostbøll, C. F. (2009). Dissent, criticism and transformative political action in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12(1), 19-36.
• Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R. and Ghaziasgar, E. (2018). Exploring the antecedents and consequences of organizational democracy. The TQM Journal, 30(1), 74-96.
• Sartori, G. (1996). Return to the theory of democracy. Tuncer Karamustafaoğlu (Trans.). Mehmet Turan Yetkin Publications.
• Schmidt, M. G. (2002). Introduction to democracy theories (2nd Edition) M. Emin Köktaş (Trans.). Vadi Publications.
• Seçer, B. (2009). Industrial democracy: From workers' participation in management to worker participation. Cement Employer Journal, 23(6), 19-35.
• Şeker, G. and Topsakal, C. (2011). The level of adoption and implementation of organizational democracy in primary schools according to administrator and teacher perceptions. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1203-1227.
• Smith, M. (1976). Barries to organizational democracy in public administration. Administration & Society, 8(3), 275-317.
• Unterrainer, C., Palgi, M., Weber, W. G., Iwanowa, A. and Oesterreich, R. (2011). Structurally anchored organizational democracy does it eeach the employee?. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(3), 118-132.
• Verdorfer, A. P. and Weber, W. G. (2016). Examining the lLink between organizational democracy and employees’ moral development. Journal of Moral Education, 45(1), 59-73.
• Verdorfer, A. P., Weber, E. G., Unterrainer, C. and Seyr, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational democracy and socio-moral climate: Exploring effects of the ethical context in organizations. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(3), 423-449.
• Vopalecky, A. and Durda, L. (2017). Principles of workplace democracy: Cases from the Czech Republic. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 1(5), 62-76.
• Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C. and Schmid, B. E. (2009). The influence of organizational democracy on employees’ socio-moral climate and prosocial behavioral orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1127-1149.
• Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C. and Schmid, B. E. (2009). The influence of organizational democracy on employees’ socio-moral climate and prosocial behavioral orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1127-1149.
• Woods, P. A. and Groon, P. (2009). Nurturing democracy the contribution of distributed leadership to a democratic organizational landscape. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4), 430-451.