SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Current Perspectives in Social Sciences / 2013 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1

-

Aktörler Kurumsal Değişime Direnir mi? Türk Emniyet Teşkilatı Örneği

Oktay KOÇ
İrfan DEMİR
Pages
1–22
Publication Date
2013-06-18
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 conclusion, it is found possible for actors against institutional change with certain stimulus to go into action and resist to change

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines why and how resistance to institutional change occurs, through the change of institutional logics, with a particular case in the Turkish National Police.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Then, two main categories of resistance strategies, -individual and collectivist-, are defined in relation to the former.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it is found possible for actors against institutional change with certain stimulus to go into action and resist to change
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal Mantıklar · Kurumsal Değişim · Kurumsal Değişime Direniş

Abstract

This study examines why and how resistance to institutional change occurs, through the change of institutional logics, with a particular case in the Turkish National Police. The study mainly employs sub methods of grounded theory. Resistance to change from the logics of authoritarian law enforcement to the democratic one is studied. Three categories of resistance, as follows, motivation by contextual conditions, tendency for political struggle, and focusing on deprivation are identified. Then, two main categories of resistance strategies, -individual and collectivist-, are defined in relation to the former. In conclusion, it is found possible for actors against institutional change with certain stimulus to go into action and resist to change

Özet

Bu çalışmada kurumsal mantıkların değişimi üzerinden ele alınan kurumsal de- ğişime direnişin neden ve nasılı Türk Emniyet Teşkilatı örnekliğinde araştırılmıştır. Gö- mülü Teori yöntemleri kullanılarak yapılan incelemede; otoriteryan kolluk mantığından demokratik kolluk mantığına geçişe direniş açısından “bağlamsal koşullarca güdülenme, politik mücadele yönelimi ve yoksunluklara odaklanma” olarak üç ana direniş nedeni kategorisi ile bunlarla bağlantılı “bireysel ve kolektif direniş stratejileri” olarak iki ana direniş stratejisi kategorisi ile alt kategorileri tanımlanmıştır. Nihayet kurumsal değişim karşısında belirli bir niyetle harekete geçip eyleyenleşen aktörlerin direniş göstermelerinin mümkün olabileceği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOÇ, O., DEMİR, İ. (2013). -. Current Perspectives in Social Sciences, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 1–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/894459

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Aldrich, E.H., (2010). Beam me up Scott(ie) Institutional Theorists’ Struggles with the Emergent Nature of Entrepreneurship. Reserach in the Sociology of Work, 21, 329-364.
  2. Altındal, H., (2010). Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri’nin Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Adına Sayıştay Tarafından Denetimi: Değişen Anayasa ve Yasal Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Bir Değerlendirme. Sayıştay Dergisi, 79, 3-70.
  3. Altınay, A. G., (2004). The Myth of Military Nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Arndt, M. & Bigelow, B., (2006). Toward the Creation of an Institutional Logic for the Management of Hospitals: Efficiency in the Early Nineteen Hundreds. Medical Care Research and Review, 63(3), 369-394.
  4. Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R., (2007). Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research, 19, 165–187.
  5. Beckert, J., (1999).
  6. Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations, Organization Studies, 20, 777-799.
  7. Bjerregaard, T., (2011). Institutional change at the Frontlines. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 6(1), 26-45.
  8. Boxenbaum, E. & Battilana, J., (2006). Importation as innovation: transposing managerial practices across fields. Strategic Organization, 3, 355-383. Charmaz K. 1998. “Grounded Theory”. Ed. Smith J.A. Harre R. ve Langenhove L.V. Rethinking Methods in Psychology içinde s. 27-50. London: Sage Dacin, M., T., Ventresca, J. M., & Beal, D. B., (1999). The Embeddedness of Organizations: Debates, Dialogue & Directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317-356. DeJordy R. 2010. Institutional Guardianship: The Role of Agency in Preserving Threatened Institutional Arrangements. A Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Management. Boston College. Delbridge, R. & Edwards, T., (2008). Challenging conventions: Roles and processes during non-isomorphic institutional change. Human Relations, 61(3), 299– 325. DiMaggio P. 1988. “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory”. Ed. Zucker L. Institutional Patterns and Organizations içinde s. 3-21. Massachusetts: Ballinger DiMaggio, J. P. & Powell, W. W., (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. DiMaggio and Powell. 1991. “Introduction”. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis içinde s.1-38. Powell W.W. ve DiM