Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 53

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEUR

KURUMSAL KURAM VE KURUMSAL GİRİŞİMCİ

Pages
94–106
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Existing studies generally show that actors have influence on the above mentioned themes, however they also point out that the environment should be taken into consideration that restricts and authorises the institutional entrepreneurs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:By the end of 1980s, institutional theory had generally focused on macro dynamic actions, organizational field, myth, adaptation and isomorphism; and paid less attention to institutional entrepreneurs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After 1980, studies lead to the resurgence of P.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Existing studies generally show that actors have influence on the above mentioned themes, however they also point out that the environment should be taken into consideration that restricts and authorises the institutional entrepreneurs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurum · Kurumsal Girişimci · Kurumsal Kuram

Abstract

By the end of 1980s, institutional theory had generally focused on macro dynamic actions, organizational field, myth, adaptation and isomorphism; and paid less attention to institutional entrepreneurs. In other words, studies related to institutional theory generally claimed that actions and behaviours of actors are determined by institutions; so the actors wouldn’t have too much influence on institutions. P. Selznick, who was accepted as the first representative of the theory by many theorists, emphasized the influence of the actor with the concept of institutional leader in maintaining, gaining the legitimacy and protecting the values of institution. After 1980, studies lead to the resurgence of P. Selznick and examined the influence of institutional entrepreneurs on the institution. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between institutional entrepreneur and the themes such as institutional change, building institutions, maintaining institutions and institutional logic. In order to achieve this aim, relevant preliminary studies on the subject of the institutional theory are examined. Existing studies generally show that actors have influence on the above mentioned themes, however they also point out that the environment should be taken into consideration that restricts and authorises the institutional entrepreneurs.

Özet

1980’li yılların sonuna kadar kurumsal kuram genel olarak, makro dinamik eylemlere, örgütsel alan, mit, uyum ve izomorfizm gibi konulara odaklanmış; kurumsal girişimciyi fazla dikkate almamıştır. Bir diğer anlamda, kurumsal kuram ile alakalı çalışmalar, genel olarak aktörlerin eylem ve davranışlarının, kurumlar tarafından belirlendiğini dolayısıyla aktörlerin kurumlar üzerinde etkisinin çok fazla olamayacağını ileri sürmüştür. 1980 sonrası yapılan çalışmalar eski kurumsal kuramın temsilcilerinden P. Selznick’in yeniden gündeme gelmesine yol açmış, yapılan çalışmalar, kurumsal girişimcilerin kurum üzerindeki etkisini araştırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı da kurumsal değişim, kurumların oluşması, muhafaza edilmesi ve kurumsal mantık gibi konularla kurumsal girişimci arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Yapılan araştırmalar genel olarak aktörlerin bu unsurlar üzerinde etkisi olduğunu göstermiş, ancak kurumsal girişimciyi sınırlandıran ve yetkilendiren çevrenin de dikkate alınması gerektiğini belirtmişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAYLAM, A., LEBLEBİCİ, D. N. (2022). INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEUR. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 53, 94–106. https://ajindex.com/articles/492910

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Bacharach S. B. & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational Politics in Schools- Micro, Macro and Logics of Action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 423- 452. Barley, R. B. & Tolbert, B. S. (1997). Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93- 117. Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and Institutions: The Enabling Role of Individuals’ Social Position, Organization, 13(5), 653- 676. Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 150- 166. Bourdieu, P (1990).
  2. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1995). The Social Space and Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723- 744. Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1991). Institutional Origins and Transformations: The Case of American Community Colleges. W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Ed), The new Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (p. 239– 310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Chen, H. (2013). The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management (Proceeding Book). A Review of Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship (p. 719- 727). China, 2013. New York: Springer. Colomy, P. (1998). Neofunctionalism and Neoinstitutionalism: Human Agency and Interest in Institutional Change. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 265–300.
  5. Czarniawska, B. (2006). Emerging Institutions: Pyramids or Anthills? Erişim: 10.02.2015, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5093064_Emerging_Institutions_Pyramids_or_Anthills.
  6. Dacin, T. N., Goodstein J. & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional Theory and Institutional Change. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43- 56. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. L. G. Zucker (Ed.). Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (p. 3- 22). Cambridge: MA: Bellinger. DiMaggio, P. J. ve Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.). The new Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (p. 1- 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  7. Dorado, S. (2005).
  8. Institutional Entrepreneurship, Partaking, and Convening. Organization Studies, 26(3), 385-414.
  9. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social Skill and Institutional Theory. American Behavioral Scientist. 40, 397- 405. Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing Society back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional contradictions. W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.)