KAY724 ÖRGÜT KURAMLARI VE BÜROKRASİ
Öğretim
Yılı ve Dönemi:
2023-2024, Güz
Ders
Kodu ve Adı: KAY724
Örgüt Kuramları
Ders
Sorumlusu:
Prof. Dr. Doğan Nadi Leblebici
Ofis Saatleri: Randevu ile (nadi@hacettepe.edu.tr)
Dersin Kapsamı ve Amacı:
Bu ders örgütlerin neden bir çalışma alanı olarak ortaya çıktığını ele almakta, örgüt kuramlarını kapalı ve açık sistem anlayışı içerisinde sosyo-psikolojik, yapısal ve ekolojik düzeylerde sunmaya çalışmaktadır. Bunların dışında, günümüz devlet bürokrasisini klasik yaklaşım çerçevesinde Weber'in ideal bürokrasi modeli ve Weber sonrası bürokrasi kuramları ile karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmektedir.
Temel Gereklilikler: Ders sorumlusu derse düzenli devam ve katılımı öğrenme sürecinin iki önemli unsuru olarak değerlendirmektedir. Derste verilen ödevler, yapılan sunumlar değerlendirme sisteminin önemli bir kısmını oluşturmaktadır. Bunların dışında ara sınavlar ve genel sınav değerlendirme sisteminde yer almaktadır.
Sınıf Faaliyetlerinin Nihayi Değerlendirmeye Katkısı:
% 30 Ödevler
% 20 Sunuşlar
% 10 Derse Katılım
% 10 Devam
% 10 Ara Sınav
% 20 Genel Sınav
Okuma Listesi:
Temel
Kaynak:
Scott, R. 1998. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, 4th ed., New York: Prentice Hall.
Diğer Okumalar: "*" ile işaretli olanlar zorunlu okumalardır.
Çalışma Alanı Olarak “Örgütler”
* Scott, Organizations, Ch. 1.
Üsdiken, B., ve Leblebici, H. 2002. Organization theory. N. Anderson ve diğ. (eds) International handbook of work and organizational psyschology, Newbury Park: Sage.
Astley, W. G., and Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central Perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 245-273.
Reed, M. 1996. Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 31-56.
*Selznick, P. 1948. Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 25-35.
Thompson, J. D. 1956. On building an administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 102-111.
Parsons, T. 1956. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-I-II, Administrative Science Quarterly 1: 63-85, 223-239.
Bilim Felsefesi ve Örgüt
Kuramı
Burrell, G. & G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann, Ch, 1, 2, 3.
*Astley, G. 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497-513.
*Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 605-622.
Bourgeois, V. W. & Pinder, C. C. 1983. Contrasting philosophical perspectives in administrative science: A reply to Morgan. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 608-613.
Hatch, M. J. 1997. Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. 21-60.
Aldrich, H. et al. 1994. Other people’s concepts. Why and how we sustain historical continuity in our field. Organization. 1: 65-80.
Bürokrasi Kuramı ve
Bilimsel Yönetim
*Scott, Organizations, 33-49.
Locke, E. A. 1982. The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An evaluation. Academy of Management Review. 7 (1) 14-24.
Hall, R. H. 1963. The concept of bureaucracy: An empirical assessment. American Journal of Sociology. 69:32-49.
Langton, J. 1984. The ecological theory of bureaucracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 330-354.
*Adler, P. & B. Borys. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly. 61-89.
Perrow, C. 1985. Comment on Langton. Administrative Science Quarterly. 30: 278-283.
*Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organizations, çeviren A. Henderson & T. Parson, 324-341.
* Weber, M. 1948. Bureaucracy. H. Gerth & C. Mills (eds) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 196-244.
Crozier, M. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blau, P. M. 1963.The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Taylor, F. W. 1967. The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.
Fayol, H. 1949. General and industrial management. London: Pitman.
Nelson, D. 1980. Frederick W. Taylor and the rise of scientific management. University of Wisconsin Press.
İnsan İlişkileri
Perspektifi
*Scott, Organization Ch. 3.
*O’Connor, E. S. 1999. Minding the workers: The meaning of ‘human’ and ‘human relations’ in Elton Mayo. Organization. 6 (2) 223-246.
Roethlisberger, F. H., & W. J. Dickson. 1946. Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard UP. 17-25, Ch. 7-8.
Gillespie, R. 1991. Manufacturing knowledge: A history of Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge UP.
Barnard, C. 1938. Functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, 82-95, 165-171.
Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
McGregor, D. 1960. The Human side of enterprise. McGraw Hill.
Likert, R. 1961. New patterns of management. McGraw Hill.
Argyris, C. 1962. Interpersonal competence and organizational effectivenes. Irwin.
Bennis, W. 1966. Changing organizations. McGraw Hill.
Selznick, P. 1951. Leadership and administration.
Karar Verme (Carnegie)
Yaklaşımı
*Scott, Organizations, 49-53.
*Cohen, M. D., March, J. C., & Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1-25.
March , J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. Wiley. Ch. 1-4.
Simon, H. 1976. Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press. Ch. 1-5.
Cyert, R. & March, J. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall. Ch. 3, 6, 7.
Koşulbağımlılık
Yaklaşımı
*Scott, Organizations, 4,5,9,10.
Donaldson, L. 1996. The normal science of structural contingency theory. S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 57-76.
*Schoonhoven, C. B. 1981. Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly. 26: 349-377.
*Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal. 36: 1175-1195.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. 1980. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal. 23: 591-614.
Miller, D. 1992. Environmental fit versus internal fit. Organization Science. 3 (2) 159-178.
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Ch. 1-3.
Pennings, J. M. 1992. Structural contingency theory: A reappraisal. L. Cummings & B. Staw (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. 14: 267-309.
Van de Ven, A., & Drazin R. 1985. The concept of fit in contingency theory. L. Cummings & B. Staw (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. 7: 333-365.
Amburgey, T. L.,& Dacin, M. T. 1994. As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal. 37 (6) 1427-1452.
Boulding, K. 1956. General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2: 197-208.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw Hill.
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. 1967.Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School Press.
Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure. Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press., Ch. 1-3.
Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. 1997. Equifinality, functional equivalance in organization design. Academy of Management Review. 22: 403-428.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Understanding strategic change: the contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal 36: 1052-1081.
Child, J. 1972. Organizational Structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology. 6: 1-22.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. 1984. Organizations: a quantum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gresov, C. 1989. Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Administrative Science Quarterly. 34: 431-453.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectivenes: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal. 36 (6) 1196-1250.
“Eylem” Bakış Açısı
*Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Ch. 6.
Weick, K. 2001. Making sense of organizations. Oxford: Blackwell, Ch. 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18.
Barley, S. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31: 78-108.
*Berger, P., & Luckman, T. 1967. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday. 47-128.
Giddens, A. 1999. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press, Ch. 1.
Örgüt içi ve Örgütler
Arası Güç İlişkileri (Politik Yaklaşımlar)
*Scott, Organizations, Ch. 11
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. 1996. Some dare call it power. S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 622-642.
*Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, S. R. 1978. The external control of organizations. Harper & Row, Ch. 1-3.
Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman.
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Astley, W. G., & Zajac, E. J. 1991. Intraorganizational power and organizational design: reconciling rational and coalitional models of organization. Organization Science. 2 (4) 399-411.
Pfeffer, J., & Leblebici, H. 1972. Executive recruitment and the development of interfirm organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 17: 382-394.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Stearns, L B. 1988. A longitudinal study of the formation of interlocking directories. Administrative Science Quarterly. 194-210.
Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 467-498.
Marksist ve Eleştirel
Yaklaşımlar
Jermier, J. M. 1998. Critical perspectives on organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly. 43: 235-256.
*Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. 1996. Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 191-217.
*Kilduff, M. & Mehra, A. 1997. 1997. Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 22: 453-481.
Jermier, J. 1985. When the sleeper awakens: A short story extending themes in radical organization theory. Journal of Management. 11 (2) 67-80.
Hyman, R. 1987. Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control. Work, Employment and Society. 1 (1) 25-55.
Nord, W. R. 1974. The failure of current applied behavioral science: A marxian perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 10: 557-578.
Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: a dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly. 22: 1-24.
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital. Monthly Review Press. Ch. 1-3.
Burawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edwards, R. 1979. Contested Terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Ch. 1-8.
Ekonomik Yaklaşımlar (İşlem
Maliyeti Yaklaşımı)
*Williamson, O. E. 1981. The economics of organizations: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology. 87: 548-577.
*Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly. 25: 129-141.
Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 269-296.
Barney, J., & Hesterly, W. 1996. Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 115-147.
Robins, J. A. 1987. Organizational economics: Notes on the use of transaction cost theory in the study of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 32: 68-86.
Barney, J. B. 1990. The debate between traditional management theory and organizational economics: Substantive differences or intergroup conflict. Academy of Management Review. 15: 382-393.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review. 14: 57-74.
Donaldson, L. 1990. A rational basis for criticisms of organizational economic: A reply to Barney. Academy of Management Review. 15: 394-401.
Gibbons, R. 1999. Taking Coase Seriously. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44: 145-157.
Granovetter, M. 1999. Coase encounters and formal models: Taking Gibbons seriously. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44: 158-162.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Eccles, R. 1987. Review of the economic institutions of capitalism. Administrative Science Quarterly. 32: 602-605.
Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for Practice: A critique of transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review. 21 (1) 13-47.
Williamson, O. E. 1996. Economic Organization: The case of candor. Academy of Management Review. 21 (1) 48-57.
Moran, P. & Ghoshal, S. 1996. Theories of economic organization: the case for realism and balance. Academy of Management Review. 21 (1) 58-72. .
Örgütsel Ekoloji
*Baum, J. 1996. Organizational Ecology. . S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, 77-114.
Amburgey, T. L., & Rao, H. 1996. Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5) 1265-1286.
*Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 929-964.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change, American Sociological Review, 49: 149-164.
Carroll, G. 1984. Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 71-93.
Young, R. C. 1988. Is population ecology a useful paradigm for the study of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 93: 1-24.
Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. 1990. Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 16: 161-195.
McKelvey, B. & Aldrich, H. E. 1983. Populations, natural science, and applied organizational science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 101-128.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 20(3) 510-540.
Astley, W. G. 1985. The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 224-241.
Anderson, P. 1999. Complexity theory and organizational science. Organization Science, 10 (3) 216-232.
Kurumsallaşma Kuramı
*Meyer, J., & B. Rowan (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
*DiMaggio, P. J., & W. W. Powell. 1983. Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
DiMaggio, P. J., & W. W. Powell. 1991. Introduction. W. W. Powell, ve P. J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 1-38, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scott,
W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage,
Ch. 1,2,3.
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.
Zucker,
L 1991. Postscript: Microfoundations of institutional thought (The Role of
Institutionalization in Cultural Persistance makalesine ek), W.W Powell, ve P.J.
DiMaggio (Ed) The New Institutionalism
in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oliver, C. (1991) “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes,” Academy of Management Review, 16 (1) 145-179.
Suchman, M. C. (1995) “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” Academy of Management Review, 20 (3) 571-610.
Tolbert,
P. S. & Zucker, L. 1996. The institutionalization of institutional theory.
S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies,
175-190, London: Sage.
Greenwood, R., ve C. R. Hinings (1996) “Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and New Institutionalism,” Academy of Management Review, 21 (4) 1022-1054.
Barley, S. R., ve Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18 (1) 93-117
.
Ekonomik
Eylem, Örgütler ve Ulusal Bağlam
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 91: 481-510.
Maurice,
M., Sorge, S., & Warner, M. 1980. Societal differences in organizing
manufacturing units: A comparison of France, West Germany and Great Britain, Organization
Studies, 1: 59-86.
Boisot, M. & Child, J. 1988. The iron law of fiefs: Bureaucratic failure and the problem of governance in the Chinese economic reforms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 507-527.
Whitley, R. 1994. Dominant forms of economic organization in market economies. Organization Studies, 15 (2) 153-182.
*Mueller, F. 1994. Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization, Organization Studies, 15 (3) 407-428.
Mayer, M. C. J., ve Whittington, R.1999. Strategy, structure, and ‘systemness’: National institutions and corporate change in France, Germany and the UK, 1950-93, Organization Studies, 20 (6) 933-959.
*Hofstede,
G. vd. 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: A Qualitative and quantitative
study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly,
35: 286-316.
Orru, M., Hamilton, G. G., ve Biggart, N. W. 1991. Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. W. W. Powell, ve P. J. DiMaggio (Der.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis 361-389,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carroll,
G. R., Delacroix, J. & Goodstein, J. 1988. The political environments of
organizations: An ecological view. B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior,
359-392.
Ders
Planı
1. Hafta: Çalışma Alanı Olarak “Örgütler”
2. Hafta Bilim Felsefesi ve
Örgüt Kuramı
3.
Hafta Bürokrasi Kuramı ve Bilimsel Yönetim
4.
Hafta: İnsan İlişkileri Perspektifi
5.
Hafta: Karar Verme (Carnegie) Yaklaşımı
6.
Hafta: Koşulbağımlılık Yaklaşımı
7.
Hafta: “Eylem” Bakış Açısı
8.
Hafta: Örgüt içi ve Örgütler Arası Güç İlişkileri (Politik Yaklaşımlar)
9.
Hafta: Marksist ve Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar
10.
Hafta: Ekonomik Yaklaşımlar (İşlem Maliyeti Yaklaşımı)
11.
Hafta: Örgütsel Ekoloji
12.
Hafta: Kurumsallaşma Kuramı
13. Hafta: Ekonomik Eylem, Örgütler ve
Ulusal Bağlam