SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2011 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4

Organizations’ responses to changing legal environment in terms of their HRM practices: Opportunistic adaptation as a new response

Örgütlerin İKY uygulamaları çerçevesinde değişen yasal çevreye tepkileri: Yeni bir tepki olarak fırsatçı uyum

İrge ŞENER
Mert AKTAŞ
Pages
611–624
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

In this research, it was also discovered that different from the responses mentioned by Oliver (1991), organizations in most cases, comply opportunistically to their institutional environment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, organizations’ response to the changing legal environment in terms of their HRM practices was investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the frame of resource dependency approach and institutional theory, to what extent the organizations avoid the legal responsibilities and to what extent they adapt to their environmental constraints was examined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this research, it was also discovered that different from the responses mentioned by Oliver (1991), organizations in most cases, comply opportunistically to their institutional environment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this research, organizations’ response to the changing legal environment in terms of their HRM practices was investigated. Within the frame of resource dependency approach and institutional theory, to what extent the organizations avoid the legal responsibilities and to what extent they adapt to their environmental constraints was examined. The findings suggest that, the organizations do not deny their institutional environments however; they prefer to make active choices to protect their technical operations within their environmental constraints. In this research, it was also discovered that different from the responses mentioned by Oliver (1991), organizations in most cases, comply opportunistically to their institutional environment.

Özet

Bu araştırmada örgütlerin insan kaynakları uygulamalarında değişen yasal çevreye verdikleri tepkiler incelenmektedir. Bu konu ele alınırken temel olarak kaynak bağımlılığı yaklaşımı ve kurumsal kuramdan yola çıkılmış ve bu kuramsal yaklaşımlar çerçevesinde örgütlerin yeni ortaya çıkan yasal yükümlülükler karşısında, ne ölçüde kaçındıkları ne ölçüde çevresel sınırlılıklara uyum sağladıkları incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, örgütlerin genel olarak kurumsal çevreyi reddetmedikleri fakat çevresel sınırlılıklar içerisinde kendi teknik faaliyetlerini koruyacak aktif seçimler yaptıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra, Oliver’ın (1991) çalışmasında belirlenen tepkilerden farklı olarak örgütlerin birçok durumda fırsatçı uyum tepkisi gösterdikleri bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENER, İ., AKTAŞ, M. (2022). Organizations’ responses to changing legal environment in terms of their HRM practices: Opportunistic adaptation as a new response. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4, 611–624. https://ajindex.com/articles/495480

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. 4857 Sayılı İş Kanunu, 10 Haziran 2003 tarih ve 25134 sayılı Resmi Gazete. Astley, W. G. and Van de Ven, H. A. (1983) “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 245–273.
  2. Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E. Jr and Nathan, B.R. (1991) “Hiring for the Organization, not the Job” Academy of Management Executive, 5(4): 35–51.
  3. Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (1994) Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management, London, Routledge. Buğra, A. (1994)
  4. State and Business in Turkey, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  5. Child, J. (1997) “Strategic Choice in the Analysis of Action, Structure, Organizations and Environment: Retrospect and Prospect” Organization Studies, 18(1): 43–76.
  6. Cook, D.S. and Ferris, G.R. (1986) “Strategic Human Resource Management and Firm Effectiveness in Industries Experiencing Decline” Human Resource Management, 25(3): 441–457.
  7. Delery, J.E. and Doty, H.D. (1996) “Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions” Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 802–835.
  8. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields” American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.
  9. Edelman, L.B. and Suchman, M.C. (1997) “The Legal Environments of Organizations” Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 379–515.
  10. Edelman, L.B. (1990) “Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace” American Journal of Sociology, 95(6): 1401–1440.
  11. Edelman, L.B. (1992) “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law” American Journal of Sociology, 97(6): 1531–1576.
  12. Erez, M. and Earley, C.P. (1993)
  13. Culture, Self- Identity, and Work, New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Florowski, G.W. and Nath, R. (1993) “MNC Responses to Legal Environment of Human Resource Management” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(2): 305–324.
  15. Ger, G. (2009) “Tüketici Araştırmalarında Nitel Yöntemler Kullanmanın İncelikleri ve Zorlukları” Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1): 1–19.
  16. Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) “The Multinational Corporation as an Inter-organizational Network” Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–625.
  17. Gooderham, P.N., Nordhaug, O. and Ringdal, K. (1999) “Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Res