SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi / 2024 / Sayı: 14

THE CRITICALITY OF DIVERSITY IN UNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONS (A DOCUMENT ANALYSED STUDY BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTIONS)

ÖRGÜTLERİ ANLAMADA FARKLILIKLARIN KRİTİĞİ (ÇALIŞMA SORULARI TEMELLİ DOKÜMAN ANALİZLİ BİR ÇALIŞMA)

Hakan Kara(Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9480-4904
Zeliha Seçkin(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, AKSARAY)0000-0003-0603-3236
Pages
103–115
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The critique of differences in understanding organisations is based on the conditions of organisation formation (superstructure conditions: common purpose, realism and concreteness, accessibility, elasticity and adaptability, willingness to contribute to the purpose, willingness and possibility of cooperation, ability to communicate; substructure conditions: manpower, financing, machinery, materials, management); conditions of continuity (continuity of willingness, competence, effectiveness, adaptation to society); classification of organisations (according to their purposes: those that benefit those who are organised, those that aim at social order and benefit, etc.) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility. ) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility; the working boundaries of organisations (sphere of influence, dependency, strategy); the functioning of organisations (authority and its migration, responsibility and its division, accountability).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, in order to understand the differences of organisations, document analysis guidelines were used to critique the differences in understanding organisations on the basis of study questions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The answers to each study question were given and the findings were critiqued.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The critique of differences in understanding organisations is based on the conditions of organisation formation (superstructure conditions: common purpose, realism and concreteness, accessibility, elasticity and adaptability, willingness to contribute to the purpose, willingness and possibility of cooperation, ability to communicate; substructure conditions: manpower, financing, machinery, materials, management); conditions of continuity (continuity of willingness, competence, effectiveness, adaptation to society); classification of organisations (according to their purposes: those that benefit those who are organised, those that aim at social order and benefit, etc.) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility. ) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility; the working boundaries of organisations (sphere of influence, dependency, strategy); the functioning of organisations (authority and its migration, responsibility and its division, accountability).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Örgütsel farklılık · çalışma soruları · doküman analizi

Abstract

In this study, in order to understand the differences of organisations, document analysis guidelines were used to critique the differences in understanding organisations on the basis of study questions. The answers to each study question were given and the findings were critiqued. The critique of differences in understanding organisations is based on the conditions of organisation formation (superstructure conditions: common purpose, realism and concreteness, accessibility, elasticity and adaptability, willingness to contribute to the purpose, willingness and possibility of cooperation, ability to communicate; substructure conditions: manpower, financing, machinery, materials, management); conditions of continuity (continuity of willingness, competence, effectiveness, adaptation to society); classification of organisations (according to their purposes: those that benefit those who are organised, those that aim at social order and benefit, etc.) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility. ) according to the distribution of authority and responsibility; the working boundaries of organisations (sphere of influence, dependency, strategy); the functioning of organisations (authority and its migration, responsibility and its division, accountability).

Özet

Bu çalışmada, örgütlerin farklılıklarını anlamak için çalışma soruları temelinde doküman analizi yönergeleri ile örgütleri anlamada farklılıklarının kritiği yapılmıştır. Her bir çalışma sorusunun yanıtlarına yer verilerek, elde olunan bulguların kritiği yapılmıştır. Örgütleri anlamada farklılıkların kritiği, örgüt oluşturma koşulları (üst yapı koşulları: ortak amaç, gerçekçilik ve somutluk, ulaşılabilirlik, elastikiyet ve uyumlanabilirlik, amaca katkıda bulunma isteği, işbirliği isteği ve olanağı, iletişimde bulunabilme; alt yapı koşulları: insan gücü, finansman, makine, malzeme, yönetim); süreklilik koşulları (istekliliğin sürekliliği, yeterlilik, etkililik, topluma uyum); örgütlerin türlendirilmesi (amaçlarına göre: örgütleşenlere yarar sağlayanlar, toplum düzeni ve yararını amaçlayanlar vd.) yetki ve sorumluluk dağılımlarına göre; örgütlerin çalışma sınırları (etki bölgesi, bağımlılık, strateji; örgütlerin işleyişi (yetki ve göçerimi, sorumluluk ve bölüşümü, hesap verilebilirlik) gibi bazı kavramlara ile bütünleştirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kara, H., Seçkin, Z. (2024). THE CRITICALITY OF DIVERSITY IN UNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONS (A DOCUMENT ANALYSED STUDY BASED ON RESEARCH QUESTIONS). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Sayı: 14, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.58627/dpuiibf.1549083

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Ağlargöz, O. (2016). Sormak ya da sormamak: Yönetim ve organizasyon alanında ilginç kuramsal katkı arayışı ve araştırma sorusunun rolü. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 71(2), 517-541.
  2. Ahmady, G. A., Mehrpour, M., & Nikooravesh, A. (2016). Organizational structure. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 455-462.
  3. Akdur, R. (2003). Sağlık ocağı hizmetlerinde izleme değerlendirme ve eğitim klavuzu. Ankara: Onur Matbaacılık.
  4. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity‐based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194-1220.
  5. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 245-273.
  6. Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel araştırma süreci: Nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır?. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388.
  7. Birken, S. A., Bunger, A. C., Powell, B. J., Turner, K., Clary, A. S., Klaman, S. L., Yu, Y., Whitaker, D. J., Self, S. R., Rostad, W. L., Chatham, J. R. S., Kirk, M. A., Shea, C. M., Haines, E. & Weiner, B. J. (2017). Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research. Implementation Science, 12, 1-15.
  8. Buluç, B. (1996). Yönetimde örgütleme süreci. Kuram ve uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 2(4),513-522. Efil, İ. (2013). İşletmelerde yönetim ve organizasyon. Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık.
  9. Fouraker, L. E., & Stopford, J. M. (1968). Organizational structure and the multinational strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47-64.
  10. Gibbons, R., & Waldman, M. (1999). Careers in organizations: Theory and evidence. Handbook of Labor Economics, 3, 2373-2437.
  11. Hicks, H. G. (1979). Örgütlerin yönetimi: Sistemler ve beşeri kaynaklar açısından. (Çev.: Tekok, O., Aytek, B., & Şen, S.), Ankara: Turhan Yayınevi.
  12. Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., & Konopaske, R. (2014). Organizational behavior and management. Tenth Edition, New York: Mc Grawhill.
  13. Johnson, G. A. (1982). Organizational structure and scalar stress. Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, 389-421.
  14. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1981). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 11(7), 32-41.
  15. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. International Journal of Scholarly, Academic, Intellectual Diversity, 14(1), 1-8.
  16. Malhotra, Y. (1997). Knowledge management. In Inquiring organizations. Americas Conference On Information Systems, Amcis Proceedings.
  17. Mohr, L. B. (1971). Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 444-459.
  18. Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A., & Kohlbacher, F. (2014). Dynamic fractal organizations for promoting knowledge-based transformation–A new paradigm for organizational theory. European Management Journal, 32(1), 137-146.
  19. Onal, G. (1979). İşletmelerde biçimsel olmayan örgüt yapısı. Bursa: Kalite Matbaası.
  20. Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 95-113.
  21. Özalp, İ. (1994). Yönetim ve organizasyon. C.2, Eskişehir: Birlik Ofset Yayıncılık.
  22. Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26-53.
  23. Scott, W. R. (1975). Organizational structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1), 1-20.
  24. Thompson, J. D. (1976). Örgütler çalışırken. Ankara: Kalite Matbaası.