KURUMSAL YAKLAŞIMLAR ÇERÇEVESİNDE LİDERLİK TEORİSİNE BAKIŞ

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 4, 108 - 126, 31.08.2019

Ela Canbolat

Öz

Liderlik
teorileri çerçevesinde, liderlerin ne tür özellikler taşıdıkları, neler
yaptıkları, nasıl davrandıkları ve karar verdikleri, etkinliği nasıl
yakaladıkları gibi konularda detaylı birçok araştırma yapılmıştır. Ancak mikro
bir kavram olarak incelediğimiz liderliğin makro kurumsal yapı ile ilişkisine
çok fazla önem verilmemiştir. Bu araştırmanın amacı lider-kurum bağlamında
Liderlik modelinin saptanmasına yönelik kavramsal bir çalışma oluşturmaktır.
Liderlik ve kurumsal teorileri yan yana getirmeyi planlayan bu çalışma lider ve
kurumsal yapı arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkiyi ortaya çıkararak “Kurumsal Liderlik”
modeli için bir mantık oluşturmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal yaklaşımlar, örgütsel liderlik

Kaynakça

• Abrahamson, E., ve Rosenkopf, L. 1993. Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using Mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Management Rewiev, 18: 487-517.
• Bass, B. M. 1981. Stogdill's handbook of leadership (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the Transactional -- Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52 (2): 139-146.
• Biggart, N. W. 1984. Management style as strategic interaction: The case of governor Ronald Reagan. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17 (3), 291-308.
• Biggart, N. W., ve Hamilton, G. G. 1987. An institutional theory of leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23 (4): 429-441.
• Blake, R. R ve Mounton, J. S. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.
• Buğra, A. 1994. State and business in Turkey. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Burns, J. M. 1979. Leadership, Harper Torch Books, N.Y.
• Civaoğlu, G. (Yapımcı). 6 Mart 2005. Şeffaf oda. [televizyon programı]. İstanbul: Kanal D.
• DiMaggio, P. J., ve Powell W. W. 1983. Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
• DiMaggio, P. J., ve Powell W. W. 1991. Introduction. Powell, W.W., ve P.J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 1-41, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Fiedler, F. E. 1970. Leadership experience and leader performance -- Another hypothesis shot to hell. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5: 1-14.
• Fiedler, F. E. 1976. Situational control and a dynamic theory of leadership. Managerial control and organizational democracy, Winstons &Sons, 107-131.
• Fleishmen, E.A. and Harris, E.F. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personal Psychology, 15 (1): 43-56.
• Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Gökşen, N. S. 2004. Makrokurumsal bakış açısı. S. Sargut ve Ş. Özen (Der.) Örgüt Kuramları. Bölüm 6 (Yayım sürecinde).
• Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3):481-510.
• Hamilton, G. G. ve Biggart, N. W. 1988. Market, culture and authority: A comparative analysis of management and organization in the Far East. American Journal of Sociology, 94 Ek: 52-94.
• House, R. J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321-339.
• Hunt, J. G. 1967. Fiedler's contingency model: An empirical test of three organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2: 290-308.
• Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects and institutionalism. Powell, W.W., ve P.J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 143-164, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Jepperson, R. L., ve Meyer, J. 1991. The public order and the construction of formal organizations. Powell, W.W., ve P.J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 204-232, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
• Lane, C. 1992. European business systems: Britain and Germany compared. R. D. Whitley (Der.), European business systems: 64-97. London, UK: Sage Publications.
• Mayer, M. C. J., ve Whittington, R. 1999. Strategy, structure and ‘systemness’: National institutions and corporate change in France, Germany and UK, 1950-1993. Organization Studies, 20(6): 933-959.
• Maurice, M., Sorge, A., ve Warner, M. 1980. Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: A comparison of France, West Germany and Great Britain. Organization Studies, 1(1): 59-86.
• Meyer, J. W., ve Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
• Meyer, J. W., ve Scott, R. W. 1983. Organizational enviroments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Meyer, J. W., ve Scott, R. W. 1994. Institutional environments and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Mintzberg, H. 1989. Mintzberg on management. New York: The Free Press.
• Mueller, F. 1994. Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization, Organization Studies, 15 (3) 407-428.
• Ogawa, R. T. & Scribner, S. P. 2002. Leadership: spanning the technical and institutional dimensions of organization. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (6): 576 -588.
• Oh, I., ve Varçın, R. 2002. The Mafioso state: State-led market bypassing in South Korea and Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 23 (4) 711-723.
• Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G. Ve Jauch, L. R. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13: 797-837.
• Overton, B. J. ve Burkhardt, J.C. 1999. Drucker Could be Right, but ... : New Leadership Models for Institutional -Community Partnerships . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (4) 227-245.
• Paşa, S.F. 2000. Türkiye ortamında liderlik özellikleri. Aycan, Z.(Ed) Türkiye’de yönetim, liderlik ve insan kaynakları uygulamaları. Ankara: Türk Psikologları Derneği Yayınları, s. 225-241.
• Powell, W. W. 1991. Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. Powell, W.W., ve P.J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 183-203, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rost, C. J. 1993. Leadership for the 21 century. Praeger, Connecticut.
• Sargut, A. S. 1998. Strateji İkamesi olarak öykünmeci eşbiçimlilik: Girişimci örgütler için bir gelişme modeli. VI. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildirileri, 21-23 Mayıs 1998, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
• Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. Harper Row: New York.
• Selznick, P. 1992. The moral common wealth: social theory and the promise of community. University of California Press: Berkley, California.
• Selznick, P. 1996. Institutionalism "old" and "new . Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (2): 270- 277.
• Sorge, A. 1996. Societal effects in cross-national organization studies: Conceptualizing diversity in actors and systems. R. Whitley ve P. H. Kristensen (Der.), The changing European firm: Limits to convergence: 67-86. London: Routledge.
• Stogdill, R. M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71.
• Terry, L. D. & Levin, M.G. 1998. Organizational skepticism, the modern conception of leadership and the obsession with new. Journal of Management History, 4 (4): 303-317.
• Wilkinson, B. 1996. Culture, institutions and business in East Asia. Organization Studies, 17(3): 421-447.
• Whitley, R. 1998. Internationalization and Varieties of Capitalism: the Limited Effects of Cross-National Coordination of Economic Activities on the Nature of Business Systems. Review of International Political Economy, 5(3) 445-481.
• Whittington, R. 1992. Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6): 693-712.
• Yukl, A. G. 1991. Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.