Transformation from professional bureaucracy to clan: Decision-making processes

In this study, to better understand the reasons behind the success or failure of organizational decisions, it investigates which institutions can be used as a power base and control center in professional bureaucracies, focusing on the emergence of high-status clans as relational institutions. It explores how the relationships between low-status and high-status clans operating within organizations are shaped, and how this relationship affects the organization's decision-making processes. Based on this idea, the study seeks to answer the questions: How are the relationships between low-status clans and high-status clans shaped in professional bureaucracies where the dominance of high-status clans is increasing? What role does this relationship play in decision-making processes? By answering these research questions, the study aims to contribute to the existing literature on inter-clan relationships and provide a different perspective. Additionally, it attempts to explain how the clan structure, which continues to exist in professional bureaucracies, affects decision-making processes and organizational change within the boundaries defined by social status. In this context, social identity theory, organizational change theory, social status and power factors are addressed within a holistic model. The study is qualitative in nature, using a case study research design. Structured interview techniques were employed for data collection, and content analysis was preferred as the data analysis technique. The sample consisted of upper-level managers working in an organization characterized by professional bureaucracy. The study was conducted with 23 managers holding the positions of "Director" and "Executive Vice President". In this study, as Muzaffer Sherif addressed in his "realistic group conflict" theory, it was expected that there would be conflict and polarization between two different clans in organizational decision-making processes. However, in light of the findings, contrary to the theory, it was concluded that both high-status and low-status clan members participated in organizational decision-making processes, but the high-status clan, which held the advantages of social status, carried out these processes according to its own beliefs, norms, and expectations. Furthermore, it was found that a significant number of low-status clan members did not resist the decisions made or the organizational changes but accepted them; some of those who accepted these changes responded with active activation and positive valence. Additionally, it was concluded that low-status clan members evaluated the decisions made, the organizational change, and their potential effects on themselves based on how aligned the situation was with their own goals or how important and meaningful it was; they reacted (or complied) according to their perceptions of individual benefit or harm. In other words, according to the findings, although there appears to be a positive interaction between the high-status clan and the low-status clan, it is believed that this situation is nothing more than a partnership based on mutual interests, unburdened by prejudice and discrimination. Moreover, according to our findings, it was concluded that as the high-status clan took control of the coalition, although the coalitions seemed to maintain their effectiveness, they did so at the expense of weakening the institutional structure. In other words, the coalition transformed into a 'hybrid clan' and the professional bureaucracy was deemed to have turned into a 'simple structure.' At this point, it is evaluated that rather than the success or failure of the decisions made, 'obedience to the decisions made by the Strategic Summit' has gained more importance.