Müşterilerin Sosyo Ekonomik Statüsü ve Kurumsallaşma: Kuyumculuk Sektöründe Yapılan Nitel Bir Araştırma

Bu çalışmanın amacı örgütlerin hizmet verdikleri sosyo ekonomik statü grupları ile örgütlerin kurumsallaşma biçimleri arasındaki ilişkinin keşfedilmesidir. Tüketicilerin talepleri aynı sektörde bulunan örgütlerin farklı uygulamaları benimsemelerine yol açabilir. Böyle bir etki rekabetin yoğun olduğu, farklı özelliklere sahip ürünlerin satıldığı ve müşteri yelpazesinin geniş olduğu sektörlerde görülebilir. Çalışma kapsamında çeşitli kuyumculuk firmalarında çalışan kırk dokuz üst düzey yönetici ile yapılandırılmış mülakat gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın araştırma deseni kültür analizidir. Toplanan veriler içerik analizi yöntemlerinden birisi olan kategorik analiz tekniğiyle analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda düşük ve yüksek sosyo ekonomik statü gruplarında bulunan insanların örgütlerden beklentilerinin ve zihinlerindeki ideallerin farklı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu ayrımın ise kurumsal çevreyi etkileyerek örgütsel yapı ve uygulamalar üzerinde belirleyici bir rol oynadığı tespit edilmiştir

Socioeconomic Status of Customers and Institutionalization: A Qualitative Study on Jewellery Sector

The purpose of this study is to explain how organizations’ institutional forms differentiates to serve their customers who have different socioeconomic status. Customer demands may force organizations to adopt different activities even if they operate in the same industry. Firms may encounter such force in an industry that involves high competition and wide product/customer range. In this respect, structured interviews have been conducted with forty-nine top managers who are working in various jewelry firms. Research pattern of this study is culture analysis. Research data has been analyzed by categorical analysis which is a sub-class of the content analysis. Findings indicate that people who belong to low socio economic status classes and high socio economic status classes have different expectations from organizations and they hold different cognitive ideals. The results show that implied differentiation shapes the institutional environment and by this way it determines which organizational structures and practices are going to be institutionalized in the field

___

  • Abell, P. (1995). The New Institutionalism and Rational Choice Theory. W. R. Scott ve S. Christensen (Ed.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies: 3-14. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Alpay, E. E., Yavuz, M. & Kahyaoğlu, M. B. (2015). “Gelir durumunun risk algısına etki eden diğer sosyo-ekonomik ve demografik faktörler üzerindeki etkisi”, C. Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt. 16, Sayı:1, 205-226.
  • Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L & Syme, L. S. (1994). “Socioeconomic status and health: the challenge of the gradient”, American Psychologist, Cilt. 49, Sayı:1, 15-24. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.49.1.15.
  • Aldrich, H. E. & Fiol, C. M. (1994). “Fools rush in? the institutional context of industry creation”, Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 19, Sayı: 4 645-670. doi: 10.2307/258740.
  • Aronsson, M. E., Nilsson, P. M., Nilsson, J. A., Pehrsson, K. & Löfdahl, C. G. (2006). “Socio-economic status and lung cancer risk including histologic subtyping-a longitudinal study”, Lung Cancer, Sayı: 51, 21-29. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2005.08.014
  • Balia, S. & Jones, A. M. (2008). “Mortality, life style and socio-economic status”, Journal of Health Economics, Sayı: 27, 1-26. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.03.001
  • Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). “Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution”, Organization Studies, Cilt. 18, Sayı: 1, 93-117. doi:10.1177/017084069701800106
  • Beyaz, B. F & Koç, A. A. (2011). “Antalya’da obezite yaygınlığı ve düzeyini etkileyen sosyo-ekonomik değişkenler”, Akdeniz İ. İ. B. F. Dergisi, Sayı: 21, 17-45.
  • Bollen, K. A., Glanville, J. L., & Stecklov, G. (2007). “Socio-economic status, permanent income, and fertility: latent-variable approach”, Population Studies, Cilt. 61, Sayı: 1, 15-34. doi:10.1080/00324720601103866.
  • Borum, F. & Westenholz, A. (1995). The Incorpation of Multiple Institutional Models: Organizational Field Multiplicity and the Role of Actors. W. R. Scott ve S.
  • Christensen (Ed.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies: 113-131. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2009). “Explaining socio-economic status differences in walking for transport: an ecological analysis of individual, social and environmental factors”, Social Science & Medicine, Sayı: 68, 1013-1020. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.008.
  • Chandola, T., & Jenkinson, C. (2000). “The new Uk national statistics socio economic classification (ns-sec); investigating social class differences in self- reported health status”, Journal of Public Health Medicine, Cilt. 22, Sayı: 2, 182-190. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/22.2.182.
  • Christensen, S., & Molin, J. (1995). Origin and Transformation of Organizations: Institutional Analysis of the Danish Red Cross. W. R. Scott ve S. Christensen (Ed.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: 67-90. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Çağlı, U. (2006). Sosyo Ekonomik Statü (SES) 2006 Projesi Sonuç Raporu. İstanbul. Daraei, M. & Mohajery, A. (2013). “The impact of socio economic status on life satisfaction”, Social Indicators Research, Cilt. 112, Sayı: 1, 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0040-x.
  • Davies, K. A., Silman, A. J., Macfarlane, G. J., Nicholl, B. I., Dickens, C., Morriss, R.,
  • Ray, D., & McBeth, J. (2009). “The association between neighbourhood socioeconomic status and the onset of chronic widespread pain: results from the epifund study”, European Journal of Pain, Sayı: 13, 635-640. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.07.003.
  • Deephouse, D. L. (1996). “Does isomorphism legitimate”, Academy of Management Journal, Cilt. 39, Sayı: 4, 1024-1039. doi: 10.2307/256722.
  • Deephouse, D. L. & Carter, S. M. (2005). “An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation”, Journal of Management Studies, Cilt. 42, Sayı: 2, 329-360. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2005.00499.x.
  • Deniz, K. Z., Türe, E., Uysal, A. & Akar, T. (2014). “Investigation of vocational interest and preference in terms of gender and socio-economic status”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Sayı: 57, 91-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2014.57.1.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. W. W. Powell ve P. J.
  • DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 1-38.
  • Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Cilt. 48, Sayı: 2, 147-160. doi: 10.17323/1726-3247-2010- 1-34-56.
  • Drefahl, S. (2012). “Do the married really live longer? the role of cohabitation and socioeconomic status”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Cilt. 74, Sayı: 3, 462- 475. doi:10.1111/j.1741 3737.2012.00968.x
  • Dunlop, S., Coyte, P. C. & McIsaac, W. (2000). “Socio-economic status and the utilisation of physicians' services: results from the Canadian national population health survey”, Social Science & Medicine, Sayı: 51, 123-133. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00424-4.
  • Eshelman, A. J. & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2015). “Viewing adolescents’ career futures through the lenses of socioeconomic status and social class”, The Carrer Development Quarterly, Cilt. 63, Sayı: 4, 320-332. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12031.
  • Friedland, R., & Alfrod, R. R. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practives, and Institutional Contradictions. W. W. Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 232-262. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Fligstein, N. (1996). “Markets as politics: a political-cultural approach to market institutions”, American Sociological Review, Cilt. 61, Sayı: 4, 656-673. doi: 10.2307/2096398.
  • Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1995). Coupling the technical and institutional faces of janus in network industries. W. R. Scott ve S. Christensen (Ed.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies: 199-225. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”, The American Journal of Sociology, Cilt. 91, Sayı: 3, 481- 510.doi: 10.1086/228311.
  • Greenwood, R.& Hinings, C. R. (1996). “Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism”, Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 21, Sayı: 4, 1022-1054. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071862.
  • Greenwood, R. & Suddaby, R. (2006). “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Cilt. 49, Sayı:1, 27-48. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498.
  • Hagen, K., Stovner, L. J., Zwart, J. A., Krokstad, S. & Bowin, G. (2002). “Low socioeconomic status is associated with increased risk of frequent headache: a prospective study of 22718 adults in Norway”, Blackwell Science Ltd Cephalalgia, Cilt. 22, Sayı: 8, 672-679. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2002.00413.x
  • Halleröd, B. & Gustafsson, J. E. (2011). “A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between changes in socio-economicstatus and changes in health”, Social Science
  • & Medicine, Sayı: 72, 116-123. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.036. Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, Cilt. 82, Sayı: 5, 926 - 964.
  • Haveman, H. A. & Rao, H. (1997). “Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry”, American Journal of Sociology, Cilt. 102, Sayı: 6, 1606-1651. doi: 10.1086/231128.
  • Heimer, K. (1997). “Socioeconomic status, subcultural definitions, and violent delinquency”, Social Forces, Cilt. 75, Sayı: 3, 799-833. doi:10.2307/2580520.
  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished working paper, Yale University, New Haven, Ct. Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. W. W.
  • Powell ve P. J. DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 143-163. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G. & Svejenova, S. (2012). “Rebels with a cause: formation, contestation, and expension of the de novo category "modern architecture" 1870-1975”, Organization Science, Cilt: 23, Sayı: 6, 1523-1545. http://dx/doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701.
  • Joseph, J., Ocasio, W. & McDonnell, M.H. (2014). “The Structural elaboration of board independence: executive power, institutional logics, and the adoption of ceoonly board structures in U.S. corporate governance”, Academy of Management Journal, Cilt. 57, Sayı: 6, 1834-1858. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0253.
  • Kalemci, A. R.& Özen, Ş. (2011). “Türk sinemacılık sektöründe kurumsal değisim (1950-2006): küresellesmenin “sosyal dıslama” etkisi”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt. 44, Sayı:1, 51-88.
  • Kaya, T. E.& Atsan, T. (2012). “Kırsal kadınların sosyo-ekonomik durumları ve geleceğe yönelik beklentileri (TRA1 bölgesi örneği)”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, Cilt. 18, Sayı: 1, 1-11. http://journal.tarekoder.org/archive/2012/2012_01_01.pdf.
  • Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I.& Jennings, D. P.(2001). “The temporal dynamics of institutionalization”, Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 26, Sayı: 4, 624- 644. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.5393901.
  • Lant, T. K.& Baum, J. A. C.(1995). Cognitive sources of socially constructed competitive groups: Examples from the Manhattan hotel industry. W. R. Scott ve S. Christensen (Ed.),The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies: 15-38. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • March, J. G.& Olsen, J. P. (1984). “The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life”, American Political Science Review, Cilt. 78, Sayı: 3, 734-749. doi: 10.2307/1961840.
  • Meyer, J. W.& Rowan, B. (1977). “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony”, The American Journal of Sociology, Cilt. 83, Sayı: 2, 340- 363. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293.
  • Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R.& Elms, H. (2008). “Ending corruption: the interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs”, The Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 33, Sayı: 3, 750-770. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159434.
  • Nakao, K. & Treas, J. (1992). “The 1989 socioeconomıc index of occupatıons: constructıon from the 1989 occupatıonal prestige scores”, GSS Methodological Report, Sayı: 74, 1-33.
  • Nee, V. & Ingram, P. (1998). Embeddedness and beyond: Institutions, exchange, and social structure. C. M. Brinton ve V. Nee (Ed.), The New Institutionalism in Sociology:19-45. California: Stanford University Press.
  • Neumark, Y. D., Rahav, G. ve Jaffe, D. H. (2003). “Socio-economic status and binge drinking in Israel”, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Cilt. 69, Sayı:1, 15-21. North, D. C. (1999). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press
  • Oliver, C. (1991). “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 16, Sayı: 1, 145-179. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1991.4279002.
  • Özen, Ş. & Kalemci, A. R. (2006). “Örgüt adlarının kurumsal analizi: Ankara’daki eczane adları üzerine bir inceleme”, 14. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Kitabı, 371-378.
  • Phongsavan, P., Chey, T., Bauman, A., Brooks, R. & Silove, D. (2006). “Social capital, socio-economic status and psychological distress among Australian adults”, Social Science & Medicine, Cilt. 63, Sayı:10, 2546-2561.
  • Reay, T. & Hinings, C. R. (2005). “The recomposition of and organizational field: health care in Alberta”, Organization Studies, Cilt. 26, Sayı: 3, 351-384.
  • Sarsani, M. R.(2011). Socio- economic status and performance on creativity tests. Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity Second Edition: 360-363. Academic Press Inc.
  • Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Californa, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Scott, R. W.(1987). “The adolescence of institutional theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Cilt. 32, Sayı: 4, 493-511.
  • Scott, R. W. (1992). Introduction: From technology to environment. Meyer, J. W. Ve Scott, R. W. (Ed.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality: 13-17. California: Sage Publications.
  • Scott, R. W.& Meyer, J. W.(1994). The rise of training programs in firms and agencies: An institutional perspective. W. R. Scott ve W. J. Meyer (Ed.), Institutional Environments and Organizations: 228-254. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Scott, R. W.(1995). Institutional effects on organizational structure and performance. Institutions and Organizations:114-132. Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Suchman, M. C.(1995). “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, The Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 20, Sayı: 3, 571-610.
  • Thomeer, M. B. (2013). “Sexual minority status and self-rated health: The importance of socioeconomic status, age, and sex”, American Journal of Public Health, Cilt. 103, Sayı: 5, e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301040.
  • Thompson, J. D.(1967). Organizations in Action, Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill.
  • Thornton, P. H.(1995). Accounting for Acquisition Waves. Evidence form the U.S.
  • Collage Publishing Industry. W. R. Scott ve S. Christensen (Ed.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies: 199-225. California, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Thornton, P. H.(2001). “Personal versus market logics of control: a historically contingent theory of the risk acquisition”, Organization Science, Cilt. 12, Sayı: 3, 294-311. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.294.10100
  • Thornton, P. H.(2002). “The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: conflict and conformity in institutional logics”, The Academy of Management Journal, Cilt. 45, Sayı: 1, 81-101.
  • Thornton, P. H.& Ocasio, W. (1999). “Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958 – 1990”, American Journal of Sociology, Cilt. 105, Sayı: 3, 801-843. doi: 10.1086/210361.
  • Tolbert, P. S.& Zucker, L. G. (1983). “Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935”, Administrative Science of Quarterly, Cilt. 28, Sayı:1, 22-39.
  • TÜİK. (2012). Türkiye Sosyo Ekonomik Statü Raporu. Erişim: 2 Mayıs2016 tarihinde TÜİK: http://tuad.org.tr/?sayfa=projelerimiz&id=6 adresinden alındı.
  • Veselska, Z., Geckova, M. A., Reijneveld, S. A.& Dijk, J. P. (2011). “Socio-economic status and physical activity amongadolescents: the mediating role of selfesteem”, Public Health, Cilt. 125, Sayı: 11, 763-768. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2011.09.007.
  • Zimmerman, M. A.& Zeitz, G. J. (2002). “Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy”, The Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 27, Sayı: 3, 414-431.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1987). “Institutional theories of organization”, Annual Review of Sociology, Sayı: 13, 443- 464. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research In The Sociology of Organizations: 1-47. Greenwich CT: Jai Press.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1977). “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”, American Sociological Review, Cilt. 42, Sayı: 5, 726-743. doi: 10.2307/2094862.
İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1309-0712
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2009
  • Yayıncı: Melih Topaloğlu
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

The Path Extended from Organizational Culture to Innovative Work Behavior: A Research on a Defense Company

Edip Sabahattin METE

Türkiye’de İşte Aile Haklarına Bakış (Son Yapılan Değişikliklerle)

DİLEK BAYBORA

Tatlıyı Yemek mi Yoksa Paylaşmak mı Tatlı? Paylaşım ve Ortak Tüketim Davranışı Üzerine Kuramsal Bir İnceleme

HAKAN KİRACI

Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısının İncelenmesi: Optimal Katılım Düzeyi Seçenek Sayısına İlişkin Bir Çıkarım1

VOLKAN DOĞAN, BEHÇET YALIN ÖZKARA, CENGİZ YILMAZ, Ömer TORLAK

Duygusal Emek, Tükenmişlik ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti Arasındaki İlişki: Otel İşletmesi Çalışanları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

AYHAN KARAKAŞ

Çevrimiçi Gizlilik ve E-Sadakat Eğilimi İlişkisi Üzerine Ülkeler Arası Bir İnceleme: Türkiye ve Rusya Arasında Bir Karşılaştırma

Süheyl ÜNVER, ESRA ARIKAN

Türkiye’deki İşletmelerde Kurumsal Kaynak Sistemlerinin Kullanımı

DİDEM PAŞAOĞLU BAŞ

Kadın Çalışanlarda Cam Tavan Yansıtıcılarından Kurum İkliminin, İş Tatmini ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi: Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma

ALEV SÖKMEN, Semra AKAR ŞAHİNGÖZ

Causality between Corporate Governance and Firm PerformanceEvidence from Borsa Istanbul (BIST)

Levent ATAÜNAL, ASLI AYBARS

Pazarlama Aracı Olarak Yolcuların Tatil Tercihlerinin Analizinde Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemlerinin Kullanımı

FATMA SELİN SAK, ÖZLEM ATALIK, HAKAN UYGUÇGİL, Coğrafi Bilgi SİSTEMLERİ