A Study On The Level Of Institutionalization Perceived By Hotel Employees - Journal of Organizational Behavior Research

A Study On The Level Of Institutionalization Perceived By Hotel Employees

Cemal Ersin Silik1, Burcu Ilgaz2*, Yusuf Dündar3, Mükerrem Atalay Oral4

1 Faculty of Tourism, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Ankara, Turkey.

2 Tourism and Travel Services, Manavgat Vocational School, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.

3 Gendarmerie and Coast Guard Academy, Ankara, Turkey.

4 Business Administration Program, Elmali Vocational School, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.

*Corresponding Author

E-mail: burcuilgaz @ akdeniz.edu.tr

ABSTRACT

The term institutionalization is a process that necessitates change and harmony with the environment and provides value and balance to establishments. The tourism industry plays quite an important role in the economic development of all countries. Therefore, the phenomenon of institutionalization is considered a strategic management system for tourism establishments to adapt to intense competition conditions, make a profit and sustain their existing share in the market. The purpose of this study was to measure the level of institutionalization perceived by 368 persons working at 50 five-star hotels operating in Antalya. Descriptive statistics were utilized in the study, with factor analysis, t-test, and ANOVA test. As a result of the analysis performed, it was found that the participants' perceptions on formalization, professionalization, cultural power, and consistency vary in accordance with the variables of total employee number, bed capacity, and time in the business of the hotels where they are employed.

Keywords: Organizational Behavior, Institutionalization, Tourism, Hotel Establishments, Antalya.

INTRODUCTION

In an environment of global competition, it can only be possible for organizations to grow and get a foothold in the international markets through a good management system (Shmatenko et al., 2020). Management systems are of utmost importance for businesses to sustain their presence and use their resources in the most efficient manner (Sboeva et al., 2019). As a result of the significance of management systems for businesses and the constant changes taking place, management science has started to focus more on the field of institutionalization (Tengilimoğlu and Akgöz, 2019: 230). The concept of institutionalization is one that envisages a faster and more permanent adaptation of businesses and establishments to a constantly changing and developing economic world and them being able to maintain their existence independently from people by becoming simpler institutions, which are at the same time different from their competitors with their own flexible structure and autonomous nature (Çakır and Bedük, 2013: 85).

Institutionalization expresses the process of harmonization between establishments and the environment in which they operate and progress that happens over time (Selznick, 1996: 271). Institutionalization brings forth change. In such a process, establishments need to change their structural characteristics and especially make arrangements to their organizational structure and system to harmonize with the environment (Akyol and Zengin, 2014: 7). Within the institutionalization process, with an orientation from the environment to the establishment, a harmony between the establishment and the environment comes to the forefront. As a result of the institutionalization process, which adds value and stability to establishments, such establishments achieve their goal of survival and persistence. Accordingly, when an establishment becomes institutional, this means that the establishment is accepted by its environment and has achieved permanency (Dilbaz, 2005: 64). Institutionalization also means the establishment of a structure that allows businesses to continue and develop their activities without being bound to the presence of people (Akça, 2010: 48; Yıldız, 2008: 89). Restructuring an establishment in line with certain principles and standards requires that the management and personnel are made up of persons who know what they are doing and the establishment operates within the scope of an understanding based on knowledge (Uzunçarşılı et al., 2000: 12; Moghaddam and Dehkhodania, 2020).

To give another definition, institutionalization is a systemic phenomenon that explains organizational change, as well as guiding establishments on how to keep in step with their environment. Accordingly, the concept of institutionalization is understood to refer to a system of harmonized and controlled activities, which arises out of the interaction between the establishment and its external environment and is a process of executing the rules, practices and procedures borne out of said system (Cevher, 2014: 588). The establishment developing the necessary managerial and organizational system in order to fulfil the conditions of the present time, identifying the appropriate conduct and business standards and principles which are the requirements of becoming an institution and setting them down in writing for implementation is another definition given for the process of institutionalization (Aydemir et al., 2004: 608).

From an organizational viewpoint, institutionalization is defined as the establishment adopting rules, standards, rational management principles and procedures not bound to any person, establishing systems that monitor changing environmental conditions, developing an organizational structure that is congruent to the developments, translating business transaction procedures and methods into organizational culture and thus taking on a different and distinguishing identity when compared with other establishments, becoming systematic and providing an efficient working environment (Gümüştekin and Adsan, 2006: 219). In this sense, tourism establishments in the tourism industry, which is dubbed the "smokeless industry", having economically positive impacts on developing countries by ensuring the inflow of hot money and foreign currency to bridge the import deficit, need to take the necessary measures to adapt to intense competition conditions, make a profit and retain their share in the existing market. The tourism industry shoulders the burden of expediting the development of countries. The industry actualizing such an expedition and creating an impact depends to a great extent on employees who carry out labor-intensive activities therein (Tayfun et al., 2010: 4; Terzi and Pata, 2016: 46). From this viewpoint, the phenomenon of institutionalization is considered to provide an extremely strategic management system for tourism establishments.

The scope of the present study involves employees of five-star hotel establishments operating in Antalya. In the study, data were collected from 368 people consisting of the employees of 50 five-star hotels by using survey techniques between September and October of 2019. Descriptive statistics, as well as the t-test and ANOVA test, were utilized in the study. The reliability of measurements carried out via the measurement tool was determined with the Cronbach's alpha measurement reliability prediction method and the validity of the use of measurements and the proposed interpretations were determined through explanatory factor analysis. A statistical package software was utilized in the analysis of survey data.

Theoretical Framework

The Institutional Theory, which serves as the basis for the concept of institutionalization, was put forth for the first time by Philip Selznick in 1948. According to Selznick, institutionalization is a process of propagating ideas and values. It is defined as an applied process shaped by the organization and individuals and restricted by the environment (Gürol, 2011). Meyer and Rowan (1977) define institutionalization as processes, obligations, and facts which become the norm in cases of social thinking and action. On the other hand, according to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), institutionalization is an adaptation tool necessary to resolve the uncertainty which the organization finds itself in. DiMaggio and Powell state that organizations can become institutional by imitating and adapting to other successful organizations in their environment (Aylan and Koç, 2018). The first thing that comes to mind about institutionalization is the description of work to be done and organizational units and preparation of written procedures (Koçel, 2014: 422). According to Broom and Selznick (1955: 238), institutionalization is a neutral concept, which means “the emergence of orderly, stable, socially integrating patterns out of unstable, loosely organized, or narrowly technical activities”. The process of institutionalization is one that commences with organizations adopting the values of groups within both the internal and the external environment, which needs to be monitored by leaders in terms of the benefits and dangers it contains. Also, according to Zucker (1977: 728), the degree of institutionalization can vary according to the environment in which the action takes place and the position and role of the actor. She argues that as the level of institutionalization increases, cultural permanence will occur by itself (Özen, 2010: 259).

Looking at studies contributing to the formation of the Institutional Theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977; Scott and Meyer, 1983), the fundamental argument of the theory is that the structure and processes of organizations are shaped according to their adaptation to the institutional environment they are in. An institutional environment consists of the rational structures, rules, norms, and beliefs formed outside of and above organizations with the modernization process (Özen, 2010: 240).

In the institutional approach, a certain similitude and parallelism is observed between the structural and procedural features of organizations operating within a certain environment and the features of such environment itself. This similitude, also expressed as isomorphism, is the most important component in the establishment of the relation between the organization and the environment. Organizations operating in the same branch will surely take on similar structures and operational features due to facing similar environmental pressures. As a result of all organizations displaying a similar isomorphism, “institutional isomorphism” will emerge. That is to say, organizations in the same branch will look alike in terms of their structures and operational characteristics. In business management, institutionalization starts with the establishment of a system in businesses. In summary, with the development of systems for business activities such as the procurement of raw material, stocking, production flow, collection records, payments, etc. institutionalization starts. This is true for all businesses regardless of their size, be it at a small or large scale (Koçel, 2014: 422).

In a study carried out by Tolbert and Zucker (1996: 182), institutionalization process is explained over a model. According to this model, factors such as technological developments, the emergence of a legal obligation, or problems borne out of market impacts give way to a new manner of organizational adaptation. That being said, the first step of institutionalization is named the habitualization stage. Conventional/stereotypical courses of conduct are generated in this stage. In the second stage, called objectification, generally-accepted meanings on stereotypical courses of conduct are formed. Finally, in the sedimentation stage, such courses of conduct take on a quality of externality and achieve reality by themselves (Çakar and Danışman, 2012: 255).

In the study conducted by Tolbert and Zucker (1996), the stages and comparative dimensions pertaining to institutionalization were addressed. Accordingly, information on the pre-institutionalization stage, semi-institutionalization stage, and full institutionalization stage is presented in Table 1 here below.

Table 1. Stages of institutionalization and comparative dimensions

Dimension	Pre-institutionalization stage	Semi-institutionalization stage	Full institutionalization stage
Processes	Habitualization	Objectification	Sedimentation
Characteristics of adopters	Homogeneous	Heterogeneous	Heterogeneous
Impetus for diffusion	Imitation	Imitative/normative	Normative
Theorization activity	None	High	Low
Variance in implementation	High	Moderate	Low
Structure failure rate	High	Moderate	Low

Source: Tolbert and Zucker, 1996: 185

It is assumed that in organizations three different types of institutional mechanisms affecting decision-making exist, namely coercive mechanisms, mimetic mechanisms, and normative mechanisms. Of these, coercive mechanisms stem from political influence and legitimacy issues. Mimetic mechanisms refer to imitating the strategies and practices of rival organizations due to uncertainties in management. Normative mechanisms, on the other hand, are related to professionalization (Boselie et al., 2003).

Studies from the literature (Alpay et al., 2008; Çavuş and Demir, 2011; Şanal, 2011; Tengilimoğlu and Akgöz, 2019; Apaydın, 2008; Akkuş and Bilen, 2020) reveal that generally five basic dimensions were addressed as regards institutionalization. These are formalization, professionalization, transparency, cultural power, and consistency (Karacaoğlu and Sözbilen, 2013). Brief information on the mentioned dimensions is provided below.

Formalization

Formalization refers to a clear definition of works and procedures, authorities, and responsibilities (Akkuş and Bilen, 2020). Formalization is the standardization and recording of business-related processes such as procedures, rules, and roles (Ferrel and Skinner, 1988). A formal structure demonstrates how the control and coordination of the establishment's actions are performed and contains a set of rational managerial relations. Within this scope, formal structures express institutionalized values (Apaydın, 2008). According to Pugh et al. (1969), the structure of an organization is closely related to the content of its activities. The diversity of organizational structures can be explained by many content-related factors (Aylan and Koç, 2017).

Professionalization

Professionalization is based upon the precepts that the works and transactions within the establishment are performed by those who are experts in the relevant area, and the balance of duty, authority, and responsibility is established on the basis of expertise (Barnes and Hershon, 1994). As regards professionalization, there is a perception that all employees working under the establishment must be persons from outside of the family. However, professionalization not only means the assignment of persons outside of the family but also persons from within the family being vested with such duties in accordance with their knowledge, skills, and training (Yazıcıoğlu and Koç, 2009). Additionally, according to Apaydın (2008), professionalism also means the development of the business climate in a way to support the characteristics of professional employees (freedom, continuous training, etc.) and keeping in contact with the professional and industrial institutions within the relevant sector.

Transparency

Transparency refers to establishments sharing information with the public in a correct, open, and complete manner (Akkuş and Bilen, 2020). Also referred to as accountability in the literature, transparency ensures that establishments share with the public the information that they hold in an accurate and complete manner. Moreover, transparency is a factor that boosts performance (Apaydın, 2008).

Cultural Power

Also called organizational culture, cultural power is the entirety of organizational beliefs and values guiding the attitudes and conduct of employees (Akkuş and Bilen, 2020). Cultural power refers to the level of acceptance of the business culture and its commonality throughout the establishment. As the acceptance by the employees of the norms, ethical code, values, and principles constituting the culture increases, the establishment will have a stronger culture (Apaydın, 2008).

Consistency

Consistency means that all actions fit the purposes of the establishments and promises are kept (Akkuş and Bilen, 2020). According to Jaworski and Merchant (1988), consistency refers to establishments keeping the promises that they make. Additionally, it can also be defined as the harmony between the mission, strategy, and actions of establishments and acting and reacting in a similar manner to other establishments that carry out similar activities within the relevant sector (Apaydın, 2008).

Literature Review

Examining the body of literature on institutionalization, it is understood that different dimensions of institutionalization such as its relation to human resources management practices (Akkuş and Bilen, 2020; Boselie et al., 2003; Yılmaz and Kitapçı, 2017), possible problems (Akyol and Zengin, 2014; Özbay and Ellidört, 2020), a scale study on its criteria (Aylan and Koç, 2017), levels of perception in hotel establishments (Aylan and Koç, 2018), relations to job satisfaction (Demirci et al., 2020), its impact on levels of institutional entrepreneurship (Karacaoğlu and Sözbilen, 2013), applications in catering establishments (Kızanlıklı, 2018), its variance according to the structure of establishments (Tengilimoğlu and Akgöz, 2019), its impact on emotional labor behavior (Çetinkaya and Korkmaz, 2018), its impact on business performance (Apaydın, 2008), its relation to hotel feasibility studies (Hodari and Samson, 2014), its impacts on the quality of working life (Marta et al., 2013) and on competitive power (Türkoğlu and Dalgıç, 2017; Türkoğlu, 2018), its impact on the use of strategic management instruments (Kurt and Yeşiltaş, 2016) have been investigated. Specifically, within the scope of the present study, a similar study carried out by Aylan and Koç (2018) comes to the fore. The purpose of the study conducted by Aylan and Koç (2018) was to identify the perceptions of employees working at hotel establishments pertaining to institutionalization. According to study results, it was found that employees working at chain establishments, hotels with an international branding, and hotel establishments with professional managers in senior management positions had a higher institutionalization perception than those working at other establishments.

In the study performed by Akkuş and Bilen (2020) the relation between institutionalization and human resources management practices in establishments was examined. According to the results obtained, significant relations were found between institutionalization and human resources management practices in establishments. The results also support the outcomes of the study carried out by Yılmaz and Kitapçı (2017). In said study, it was found that strategic human resources management has a positive impact on the institutionalization process. In a similar study conducted by Boselie et al. (2003), it was identified that human resources management has a lesser impact on institutions with a high level of institutionalization (such as hospitals and local administrations). In establishments with a lower level of institutionalization such as hotels, the impact of human resources management was found to be greater.

In the study conducted by Akyol and Zengin (2014) problems that may arise concerning institutionalization were addressed. In the study performed on family-owned businesses, it was understood that the most significant problem areas related to institutionalization were focused on communication, planning, generational conflict, population problems, role conflicts, high labor turnover rate, power struggles, and gossip. In a similar study performed by Özbay and Ellidört (2020), it was identified that the most significant problems which family-owned businesses face with relation to institutionalization are impulsive decision-taking on the part of the managers, strategic decisions being made by the owner of the establishment, verbal disclosure of decisions taken by family members, persons outside of the family not having an impact on the decisions made and difficulties in the implementation of decisions due to differences in opinion.

In the study carried out by Marta et al. (2013), it was found that institutionalization has a positive effect on the quality of working life. In the study conducted by Çetinkaya and Korkmaz (2018) as regards the relation between institutionalization and emotional labor, it was found out that in establishments where written work descriptions and rules are present and adopted by everyone, employees tend to exert more emotional labor. The results show that institutionalization also has a positive impact on emotional labor. Additionally, in the study performed by Demirci et al. (2020) on the relation between institutionalization and job satisfaction, a positive relation was found between institutionalization and job satisfaction. It was underlined that hotel establishments wishing to increase job satisfaction should take steps towards institutionalization (Demirci et al., 2020). Along with this, in a study performed to investigate the impact of the level of institutionalization in hotel establishments on the use of strategic management tools, Kurt and Yeşiltaş (2016) found a significant relationship between the two. Consequently, as the level of institutionalization in establishments increases, strategic management tools are also used more (Kurt and Yeşiltaş, 2016).

In the study conducted by Tengilimoğlu and Akgöz (2019), institutionalization levels and business structures were investigated. Looking at the results pertaining to the relation between the institutionalization levels of hotels and their structural characteristics, it was found that hotels that are active year-round had a higher level of formalization and cultural power average than seasonal hotels. Moreover, according to study results, it was revealed that hotels that are not family-owned businesses have a higher level of formalization when compared to hotels that are family-run establishments. In a study where the impact of institutionalization on the institutional entrepreneurship levels of accommodation establishments was examined, Karacaoğlu and Sözbilen (2013) concluded that institutionalization in accommodation establishments have a significant impact on institutional entrepreneurship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research population was made up of employees of five-star hotel establishments in Antalya. Most of the accommodation establishments with a tourism operation license in Turkey (19.5%) are located in Antalya (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2020). A great portion of accommodation establishments in Antalya (42.3%) consists of five-star hotels (TÜROB, 2020).

The survey method was utilized in the study as a data collection tool. The study took place between September and October of 2019. The survey was applied to the employees of 50 five-star hotels. According to the information obtained from the hotels, a total of 14.167 personnel work at these establishments. 750 survey questionnaires in total were handed out by the researchers and 404 filled questionnaires were collected back. Following the examination of the questionnaires collected, 368 questionnaires were found to be eligible. The ratio of the survey questionnaires evaluated to the survey questionnaires handed out is 49.1%.

In the survey, alongside the questions asked to identify the demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, level of education, marital status, term of employment) and the features of the hotel they work at (number of employees, bed capacity, time in business, type of establishment, seasonality status), the 5-Point Likert Scale (1: Absolutely Agree; 5: Absolutely Disagree) developed by Apaydın (2007) was used to reveal the level of institutionalization which hotel employees associate with their establishment and to investigate their tendencies pertaining to the level of institutionalization. Consisting of 26 items in total, the scale encompasses four dimensions. Each of these dimensions represents the components of institutionalization. These dimensions are formalization (4 items), professionalization (6 items), cultural power (5 items), and consistency (11 items).

In order to come up with findings on the demographic features of hotel employees and the perceived level of institutionalization and to identify whether such perceptions differ according to the demographic characteristics of hotel employees and the features of the hotel they work at, statistical methods of frequency, percentage, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, t-test for independent samples (for variables containing two groups such as gender, etc.) and ANOVA (for variables containing more than two groups such as level of education, etc.) were utilized in the analysis of the data. In the study, it was assumed concerning the use of parametric tests (t-test for independent samples, ANOVA) that by addressing each group (female, etc.) under each dimension (formalization, professionalization, cultural power, consistency) and each variable (gender, etc.) separately it was ensured that the data which needed to be met fit the normal distribution. In order to identify which groups caused a significant difference emerging in variables containing more than two groups as a result of the analyses performed over parametric tests, in cases where the homogeneity of variances was achieved according to the post-hoc multiple comparison test statistics which do not require a principle of the equal number of samples between the groups the Bonferroni test and in cases where such homogeneity was not achieved Tamhane’s T2 test were utilized. The homogeneity of variances was analyzed using Levene’s statistics. Moreover, in cases where the homogeneity of variances was not achieved, instead of the (F and p) values obtained as a result of the ANOVA analysis, the data obtained from the output of Welch and Brown-Forsythe's statistics, which is another result of the same analysis, were utilized. The reliability of measurements made with the measurement tool was determined with the Cronbach's alpha measurement reliability prediction method and the validity of the use of measurements and the proposed interpretations were determined through explanatory factor analysis. SPSS statistical software was used in the analysis of survey data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Findings on Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 2. The majority of the participants consist of male (65.8%) employees between the ages of 31-40 (47.6%), who have graduated from university (52.7%), are married (59.8%), and have been working as a chef (13.3%) in the hotel they are presently employed at for a duration of (1-3 years) (43.8%).

Table 2. Distribution of study participants by demographic characteristics

Dem. Charact.	Groups	f	%
Gender	Female	126	34.2
	Male	242	65.8
	Total	368	100
Age	21-30	82	22.3
	31-40	175	47.6
	41-50	88	23.9
	51-60	23	6.3
	Total	368	100
Level of Education	Primary School	28	7.6
	High School	137	37.2
	University	194	52.7
	Postgraduate	9	2.4
	Total	368	100
Marital Status	Married	220	59.8
	Single	104	28.3
	Divorced/Widow(er)	44	12
	Total	368	100
Assigned Duty (Position)	General manager	24	6.5
	Purchasing manager	1	.3
	Accounting-finance manager	21	5.7
	Human resources manager	5	1.4
	Marketing sales manager	4	1.1
	Front office manager	18	4.9
	Catering manager	32	8.7
	Housekeeping manager	27	7.3
	Technical manager	2	.5
	Security manager	23	6.3
	Public relations manager	25	6.8
	IT manager	1	.3
	Quality manager	21	5.7
	Entertainment manager	22	6
	Floor supervisor	25	6.8
	Chef	49	13.3
	Accounting supervisor	24	6.5
	HR supervisor	24	6.5
	Bar supervisor	20	5.4
	Total	368	100
Term of Employment	Less than 1 year	71	19.3
	1-3 years	161	43.8
	4-6 years	106	28.8
	7-9 years	20	5.4
	10 years and above	10	2.7
	Total	368	100

Findings Regarding the Features of the Hotels from the Perspective of the Employees

The distribution of hotel employees who participated in the study by the features of the hotel they work at is presented in Table 3 here below. The majority of the participants consists of employees of hotels where between 201-300 personnel is employed (32.1%), with a bed capacity of 601-800 (41.6%), with 6-10 years of time in business (39.7%), defined as domestic chain establishment (65.2%) and operating year-round (73.6%).

Table 3. Distribution of hotel employees who participated in the study by the features of the hotel they work at

Features	Groups	f	%
Number of Hotel Personnel	0-200	42	11.4
	201-300	118	32.1
	301-400	106	28.8
	401-500	73	19.8
	501-600	23	6.3
	601 and above	6	1.6
	Total	368	100
Hotel Bed Capacity	200-400	14	3.8
	401-600	36	9.8
	601-800	153	41.6
	801-1000	103	28
	1001 and above	62	16.8
	Total	368	100
Hotel's Time in Business	1-5 years	40	10.9
	6-10 years	146	39.7
	11-15 years	118	32.1
	16-20 years	59	16
	21 years and above	5	1.4
	Total	368	100
Hotel's Type of Business	Foreign hotel chain	25	6.8
	Domestic hotel chain	240	65.2
	Foreign independent hotel	9	2.4
	Domestic independent hotel	94	25.5
	Total	368	100
Seasonality Status	Seasonal	97	26.4
	Year-round	271	73.6
	Total	368	100

Findings from the Scale

Findings Obtained Through Descriptive Statistical Methods and Reliability and Explanatory Factor Analysis Results

Findings from the Institutionalization Principles Scale (IPS) developed to identify the perception of hotel employees concerning the level of institutionalization of their establishments are presented in Table 4. As a result of the reliability analysis performed with the Cronbach's alpha measurement reliability prediction method and of the validity analysis performed through explanatory factor analysis, no items were found necessary to be removed from the scale. As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, only three factors with eigenvalue statistics higher than 1 were identified under the consistency dimension in the scale.

Table 4. Findings from the scale

Scale			W. A.	Standard Deviation	Factor Loads	Reliability Coefficient
*IPS*			3.76	.46		.891
Factors Obtained from the Explanatory Factor Analysis	*Formalization dimension*		3.53	.70		.704
	-	Employee handbooks on issues such as safety and working conditions are available in our hotel	3.36	1.11	.735
		There are written operational instructions for employees in our hotel	3.84	.88	.767
		There is a written handbook on established rules and procedures in our hotel	3.46	.86	.716
		There are written task definitions in our hotel	3.45	.99	.706

	Explained Cumulative Total Variance % 53.466
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		KMO .617
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		Barlett's Test p .000
	*Professionalization dimension*		3.55	.86		.934
	-	In our hotel, promotions are made in accordance with the performance skills of employees	3.70	.84	.892
		Our professional supervisors have a say in the adoption of new policies	3.60	.95	.933
		Our hotel is specialized	3.58	.97	.923
		Professionals have a say in the selection of persons to be newly employed at our hotel	3.71	1.04	.923
		Our hotel is professional	3.43	1.09	.787
		Employees of our hotel are awarded in accordance with their performance and skills	3.28	1.05	.774

	Explained Cumulative Total Variance % 76.485
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		KMO .872
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		Barlett's Test p .000
	*Cultural power dimension*		3.46	.77		.885
	-	In our hotel, it is easy to reach a compromise between employees even in difficult matters	3.29	1.03	.874
		In our hotel, there is a clear understanding among the employees on the right and the wrong ways to do things	3.30	.96	.940
		Employees working at different departments of our hotel share the same corporate perspective	3.35	.98	.930
		There is a good consistency of purpose among the departments of the hotel and at different levels (subordinate/supervisor)	3.39	.85	.885
		In our hotel, there is a strong culture of corporate commitment among the employees	3.98	.83	.461

	Explained Cumulative Total Variance % 70.122
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		KMO .801
	KMO and Bartlett's Test		Barlett's Test p .000
	*Coherency dimension*		4.09	.45		.804
	Factor 1	The strategic goals and actions (activities) of our hotel are consistent	4.07	.82	.800
		In our hotel, business flow processes and the structure of our organization are compatible	3.89	.87	.908
		Our hotel is consistent	3.76	.85	.851
		Our hotel keeps the promises it makes to its stakeholders (other institutions, customers, and employees)	3.72	.73	.853
		Our hotel's strategies and business processes are compatible	3.92	.74	.913
	Factor 2	Technical proficiencies of the employees of our hotel are congruent with our business processes	4.21	.78	.738
		All actions, processes, and structures implemented in our hotel is exactly as explained to the external auditors	4.14	.84	.915
		In our hotel, punishment and reward applies in the same manner to everyone under similar conditions	4.21	.81	.873
		The processes and structure of our hotel are similar to those of establishments doing the same business in the same sector	4.32	.71	.867
	Factor 3	Our hotel reacts to similar situations in similar ways	4.38	.64	.878
	Factor 3	In our hotel, managerial decisions are taken in line with the vision, mission, and strategy	4.35	.61	.847

	Explained Cumulative Total Variance % 79.162
	*KMO and Bartlett's Test*		*KMO .729*
	*KMO and Bartlett's Test*		*Barlett's Test p .000*

According to the analysis results provided in Table 4, it can be said that the institutionalization levels of the hotels are good (=3.76). Specifically, in the consistency dimension, which is one of the components of institutionalization the employees have a rather positive perception (=4.09). When compared with the other dimensions of institutionalization, employees have the least positive perception partially in the cultural power dimension (=3.46). Moreover, it is observed that the arithmetic mean for the responses given to all items is above 3.00. Employees express the most positive thoughts on statements which read “our hotel reacts to similar situations in similar ways” (=4.38), “in our hotel, managerial decisions are taken in line with the vision, mission and strategy” (=4.35) and “the processes and structure of our hotel are similar to those of establishments doing the same business in the same sector” (=4.32) under the dimension of consistency, among the components of institutionalization. Contrarily, employees' considerations concerning the statements which read “employees of our hotel are awarded in accordance with their performance and skills” (=3.28), “in our hotel, it is easy to reach a compromise between employees even in difficult matters” (=3.29) and “in our hotel, there is a clear understanding among the employees on the right and the wrong ways to do things” (=3.30) are partially less positive.

Findings on whether the data obtained from the scale prepared to reveal the study participants’ considerations on the four dimensions which determine their perceived level of institutionalization pertaining to the hotel establishment they work at vary according to their demographic features are presented in Table 5.

Considerations of respondents under the formalization dimension differ in accordance with age, level of education, and term of employment at the hotel. In consequence of the post-hoc tests performed, it could not be identified from which groups the difference related to age and level of education arises; and it was found that as the term of employment at the hotel increases, a more positive outlook on formalization which is among the components of institutionalization is adopted.

Considerations of respondents under the professionalization dimension again differ in accordance with age, level of education, and term of employment at the hotel. It could not be determined from which groups the difference related to the term of employment at the hotel arises, following the post-hoc test performed. Looking at the age variable, the difference stems from the fact that those within the (51-60) age group have a more positive perception (=3.96) than those within the (31-40) age group (=3.43). As for the variable of the level of education, the difference stems from the fact that those who have received postgraduate education have more positive opinions (=4.46) than high school (=3.49) and university (=3.51) graduates.

Likewise, participants’ considerations under cultural power differ in accordance with gender, age, and level of education. The difference stems from the fact that men (=3.53) compared to women (=3.33), and those within the (51-60) age group (=3.92) when compared to those within the (21-30) (=3.36) and (31-40) (=3.39) age groups have provided more positive responses under the cultural power dimension. As for the variable of the level of education, it can partially be said that a higher level of education leads to a tendency of more positive perception. Lastly, the perceptions of the participants under the consistency dimension show no difference according to any demographic feature of hotel employees, as understood from the analyses performed. Generally speaking, it was found that the perceptions of the employees show no difference in accordance with the variable of marital status but the variables of age and level of education play a significant role.

Table 5. Findings from the comparison of the evaluations of study participants in terms of their demographic features

Dms.	Variables	Groups	n	W. A.	s.d.	Levene's Test (p)*	t/F/W-BF	p	Post-hoc
Formalization	Gender	Female	126	3.46	.49	.000	-1.569	.118	No difference
	Gender	Male	242	3.56	.78	.000	-1.569	.118	No difference
	Age	21-30	82	3.42	.60	.168*	3.370	.019**	(-) *****
		31-40	175	3.47	.71
		41-50	88	3.65	.71
		51-60	23	3.84	.75
	Level of Education	Primary School	28	3.49	1.05	.000	3.078-2.189 ****	.041/**0.97	(-) ******
		High School	137	3.41	.75
		University	194	3.60	.59
		Postgraduate	9	3.86	.50
	Marital Status	Married	220	3.55	.75	.019	.602-.553 ****	.549/.577	No difference
		Single	104	3.47	.59
		Divorced/Widow(er)	44	3.57	.66
	Term of Employment	Less than 1 year a	71	3.39	.71	.643*	4.441	.002***	(a to d, e; b to e) *****
		1-3 years b	161	3.48	.67
		4-6 years	106	3.56	.66
		7-9 years d	20	3.90	.77
		10 years and above e	10	4.15	.74
Professionalization	Gender	Female	126	3.66	.73	.000	1.854	.065	No difference
	Gender	Male	242	3.49	.91	.000	1.854	.065	No difference
	Age	21-30	82	3.57	.76	.410*	3.320	.020**	(b to d) *****
		31-40 b	175	3.43	.84
		41-50	88	3.66	.91
		51-60 d	23	3.96	.95
	Level of Education	Primary School	28	3.85	.75	.013	11.956-7.092 ****	.000/.000	(d to b, c) ******
		High School b	137	3.49	.81
		University c	194	3.51	.89
		Postgraduate d	9	4.46	.47
	Marital Status	Married	220	3.59	.88	.154*	1.208	.300	No difference
		Single	104	3.44	.84
		Divorced/Widow(er)	44	3.61	.75
	Term of Employment	Less than 1 year	71	3.70	.85	.658*	2.882	.023**	(-) *****
		1-3 years	161	3.46	.86
		4-6 years	106	3.47	.84
		7-9 years	20	3.92	.87
		10 years and above	10	4.02	.73
Cultural Power	Gender	Female	126	3.33	.69	.001	-2.533	.012**	Difference present
	Gender	Male	242	3.53	.80	.001	-2.533	.012**	Difference present
	Age	21-30 a	82	3.36	.74	.256*	4.447	.004***	(d to a, b) *****
		31-40 b	175	3.39	.76
		41-50	88	3.58	.79
		51-60 d	23	3.92	.56
	Level of Education	Primary School	28	3.51	.85	.111*	7.393	.000***	(b to c, d; c to d) *****
		High School b	137	3.27	.71
		University c	194	3.56	.76
		Postgraduate d	9	4.24	.50
	Marital Status	Married	220	3.50	.78	.361*	.953	.387	No difference
		Single	104	3.37	.73
		Divorced/Widow(er)	44	3.48	.75
	Term of Employment	Less than 1 year	71	3.47	.67	.314*	1.427	.224	No difference
		1-3 years	161	3.44	.78
		4-6 years	106	3.39	.78
		7-9 years	20	3.77	.85
		10 years and above	10	3.76	.81
Consistency	Gender	Female	126	4.11	.43	.185*	.779	.437	No difference
	Gender	Male	242	4.08	.44	.185*	.779	.437	No difference
	Age	21-30	82	3.99	.54	.003	2.518-2.422 ****	.062/.067	No difference
		31-40	175	4.13	.42
		41-50	88	4.12	.40
		51-60	23	3.99	.24
	Level of Education	Primary School	28	4.13	.45	.267*	.210	.889	No difference
		High School	137	4.09	.41
		University	194	4.08	.47
		Postgraduate	9	4.00	.33
	Marital Status	Married	220	4.12	.44	.521*	1.136	.322	No difference
		Single	104	4.05	.42
		Divorced/Widow(er)	44	4.04	.46
	Term of Employment	Less than 1 year	71	4.03	.43	.441*	1.213	.305	No difference
		1-3 years	161	4.08	.45
		4-6 years	106	4.11	.43
		7-9 years	20	4.24	.41
		10 years and above	10	4.22	.54

If p>.05, the variances for the variable are homogeneous (equal); p<.05; p<.01; * Welch/Brown-Forsythe, * Bonferroni, **** Tamhane T2

Findings from the Examination of the Considerations of the Respondents Pertaining to the Level of Institutionalization of Their Hotel Establishments from the Viewpoint of the Features of Hotels

Findings on whether the data obtained from the scale prepared to reveal the study participants' considerations on the four dimensions, which determine their perceived level of institutionalization pertaining to the hotel establishment they work at vary according to their features of the hotels are presented in Table 6.

Participants’ considerations under the formalization dimension differ in accordance with the variables of the total number of personnel, bed capacity, and time in the business of the hotels they work at. It could not be determined from which groups the difference related to the total number of hotel personnel arises, following the post-hoc test performed. As concerns the variable of bed capacity, the difference stems from the fact that those working at hotels with a bed capacity of (601-800) have a less positive perception (=3.39) when compared to those working at hotels with a bed capacity of (401-600) (=3.78) and of (1,001 and above) (=3.77) and that those working at hotels with a bed capacity of (801-1,000) have a less positive perception (=3.46) when compared to those working at hotels with a bed capacity of (1,001 and above) (=3.77). As for the variable of hotel's time in business, the difference stems from the fact that the perception of those working at hotels which have been in business for (1-5 years) is more positive (=3.99) when compared to those working at hotels, which have been in business for (6-10 years) (=3.42) and for (11-15 years) (=3.44).

On the other hand, participants’ considerations under the professionalization dimension differ in accordance with the variables of the total number of personnel, bed capacity and time in business, and type of establishment of the hotels they work at. Concerning the variable of the total number of personnel, the difference stems from the fact that those employed at hotels employing (0-200) personnel have a more positive perception when compared to the other groups (201-300, 301-400, 401-500). As for the variable of hotel bed capacity, the difference stems from the fact that those working at hotels with the lowest bed capacity (200-400) have a more positive perception than those employed at hotels with the highest bed capacity (1,001 and above). And for the variable of hotel's time in business, the difference stems from the fact that employees of hotels with the least time in business (1-5 years) have a more positive perception when compared to the other groups (6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years). As concerns the variable of the type of establishment, the difference stems from the fact that employees of foreign independent hotels have a more negative perception (=2.76) than those working at domestic chain hotels (=3.58) and domestic independent hotels (=3.57).

Participants’ considerations under the cultural power dimension differ in accordance with the variables of the total number of personnel, bed capacity, and time in the business of the hotel they work at. Concerning the variable of the total number of personnel, the difference stems from the fact that those working at hotels employing (501-600) personnel have a less positive perception (=3.38) than those working at hotels employing (601 and above) (=4.53). As for the variable of hotel bed capacity, the difference stems from the fact that the employees of hotels with the lowest (200-400) and the highest (1,001 and above) bed capacity have a more positive perception pertaining to the dimension of cultural power when compared with the others. For the variable of hotel's time in business, the difference stems from a more positive perception on the side of the employees of hotels with the least time in business (1-5 years) when compared to other groups (6-10, 11-15, 16-20 years).

Participants’ considerations under the consistency dimension differ in accordance with the variables of the total number of personnel, bed capacity and time in business, and the seasonality status of the hotels they work at. It could not be determined from which groups the difference related to the hotel bed capacity arises, following the post-hoc test performed. Concerning the variable of the total number of personnel, the difference stems from the fact that employees of hotels with the highest number of personnel (601 and more) have a more positive perception within the scope of the consistency dimension (=4.55) when compared to those working at hotels employing (401-500) personnel (=3.99) and (501-600) personnel (=3.95). As for the variable of hotel's time in business, the difference stems from the fact that those working at hotels with the least time in business (1-5 years) and the most time in business (21 years and above) have more positive perceptions when compared to other groups. And for the variable of seasonality status, the difference stems from the fact that those employed at hotels operating year-round have a more positive perception (=4.12) than those working at seasonal hotels (=4.00).

Generally speaking, it was found that the perceptions of employees differ less in accordance to the variables of type of establishment and seasonality status than other variables, that on the other hand, the variables of total hotel personnel number, bed capacity, and time in business play a significant role and that perceptions under the dimensions of professionalization and consistency display more variance when compared to variables pertaining to hotel features under other dimensions.

Table 6. Findings from the comparison of the evaluations of study participants in terms of the features of the hotel

Dms.	Variables	Groups	n	W. A.	s.d.	Levene's Test (p)*	t/F/W-BF	p	Post-hoc
Formalization	Number of Hotel Personnel	0-200	42	3.74	.92	.000	4.091-4.312 ****	.004/.001	(-) ******
		201-300	118	3.37	.70
		301-400	106	3.50	.57
		401-500	73	3.65	.62
		501-600	23	3.45	.74
		601 and above	6	4.46	.71
	Hotel Bed Capacity	200-400	14	3.82	.97	.014	5.200-4.653 ****	.001/.002	(c to b, e; d to e) ******
		401-600 b	36	3.78	.59
		601-800 c	153	3.39	.72
		801-1000 d	103	3.46	.59
		1001 & above e	62	3.77	.70
	Hotel's Time in Business	1-5 years a	40	3.99	.71	.442*	7.297	.000***	(a to b, c) *****
		6-10 years b	146	3.42	.74
		11-15 years c	118	3.44	.60
		16-20 years	59	3.61	.63
		21 years and above	5	4.15	.82
	Hotel's Type of Business	Foreign hotel chain	25	3.44	.63	.459*	.429	.732	No difference
		Domestic hotel chain	240	3.53	.74
		Foreign independent hotel	9	3.33	.63
		Domestic independent hotel	94	3.56	.61
	Seasonality Status	Seasonal	97	3.52	.67	.520*	-.076	.940	No difference
	Seasonality Status	Year-round	271	3.53	.71	.520*	-.076	.940	No difference
Professionalization	Number of Hotel Personnel	0-200 a	42	3.98	.64	.000	5.843-4.290 ****	.000/.001	(a to b, c, d) ******
		201-300 b	118	3.53	.77
		301-400 c	106	3.43	.84
		401-500 d	73	3.50	.98
		501-600	23	3.38	1.03
		601 and above	6	4.44	.68
	Hotel Bed Capacity	200-400 a	14	4.24	.66	.000	7.920-9.007 ****	.000/.000	(a to b, c, d; e to d, c) ******
		401-600 b	36	3.61	.49
		601-800 c	153	3.47	.79
		801-1000 d	103	3.33	.96
		1001 & above e	62	3.92	.87
	Hotel's Time in Business	1-5 years a	40	4.13	.62	.000	13.017-11.448 ****	.000/.000	(a to b, c, d) ******
		6-10 years b	146	3.56	.77
		11-15 years c	118	3.30	.91
		16-20 years d	59	3.55	.87
		21 years and above	5	4.53	.55
	Hotel's Type of Business	Foreign hotel chain	25	3.41	.76	.788*	2.960	.032**	(c to b, d) *****
		Domestic hotel chain b	240	3.58	.86
		Foreign independent hotel c	9	2.76	.85
		Domestic independent hotel d	94	3.57	.84
	Seasonality Status	Seasonal	97	3.69	.77	.002	1.956	.052	No difference
	Seasonality Status	Year-round	271	3.50	.88	.002	1.956	.052	No difference
Cultural Power	Number of Hotel Personnel	0-200	42	3.62	.76	.038	5.247-4.557 ****	.001/.001	(e to f) ******
		201-300	118	3.36	.85
		301-400	106	3.36	.67
		401-500	73	3.60	.70
		501-600 e	23	3.38	.72
		601 and above f	6	4.53	.60
	Hotel Bed Capacity	200-400 a	14	4.06	.70	.575*	12.554	.000***	(a to c, d; b to d; e to c, d) *****
		401-600 b	36	3.67	.65
		601-800 c	153	3.31	.73
		801-1000 d	103	3.26	.71
		1001 & above e	62	3.91	.78
	Hotel's Time in Business	1-5 years a	40	4.13	.66	.358*	11.688	.000***	(a to b, c, d) *****
		6-10 years b	146	3.35	.77
		11-15 years c	118	3.31	.71
		16-20 years d	59	3.53	.67
		21 years and above	5	4.16	.87
	Hotel's Type of Business	Foreign hotel chain	25	3.31	.74	.046	.396-.527 ****	.756/.665	No difference
		Domestic hotel chain	240	3.48	.79
		Foreign independent hotel	9	3.49	.37
		Domestic independent hotel	94	3.45	.73
	Seasonality Status	Seasonal	97	3.42	.74	.597*	-.537	.592	No difference
	Seasonality Status	Year-round	271	3.47	.78	.597*	-.537	.592	No difference
Consistency	Number of Hotel Personnel	0-200	42	4.18	.45	.796*	2.985	.012**	(f to d, e) *****
		201-300	118	4.12	.41
		301-400	106	4.09	.40
		401-500 d	73	3.99	.50
		501-600 e	23	3.95	.45
		601 and above f	6	4.55	.52
	Hotel Bed Capacity	200-400	14	4.43	.56	.045	1.804-2.488 ****	.138/.050**	(-) ******
		401-600	36	4.06	.33
		601-800	153	4.05	.44
		801-1000	103	4.08	.45
		1001 and above	62	4.14	.42
	Hotel's Time in Business	1-5 years a	40	4.26	.49	.413*	4.809	.001***	(a to b; e to b, c, d) *****
		6-10 years b	146	4.04	.43
		11-15 years c	118	4.06	.41
		16-20 years d	59	4.08	.43
		21 years and above e	5	4.73	.43
	Hotel's Type of Business	Foreign hotel chain	25	3.97	.40	.503*	1.127	.338	No difference
		Domestic hotel chain	240	4.11	.45
		Foreign independent hotel	9	4.19	.25
		Domestic independent hotel	94	4.06	.43
	Seasonality Status	Seasonal	97	4.00	.51	.007	-2.018	.045**	Difference present
	Seasonality Status	Year-round	271	4.12	.41	.007	-2.018	.045**	Difference present

If p>.05, the variances for the variable are homogeneous (equal); p<.05; p<.01; * Welch/Brown-Forsythe, * Bonferroni, **** Tamhane T2

CONCLUSION

Tourism industry provides a significant economic contribution, especially for developing countries. Therefore, institutionalization has strategic importance for tourism establishments to adapt to intense competition conditions, make a profit, and sustain their existing share in the market. Generally, five dimensions are addressed within the scope of the concept of institutionalization. These dimensions are formalization, professionalization, transparency, cultural power, and consistency.

The population of the present study consists of employees of five-star hotel establishments in Antalya. The survey method was utilized in the study as a data collection tool. The study took place between September and October of 2019. The survey was applied to the employees of 50 five-star hotels.

In the survey, alongside the questions asked to identify the demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, level of education, marital status, term of employment) and the features of the hotel they work at (number of employees, bed capacity, time in business, type of establishment, seasonality status), the 5-Point Likert Scale (1: Absolutely Agree; 5: Absolutely Disagree) developed by Apaydın (2007) was utilized to reveal the level of institutionalization which hotel employees associate with their establishment and to investigate their tendencies pertaining to the level of institutionalization. Consisting of 26 items in total, the scale encompasses four dimensions. Each of these dimensions represents the components of institutionalization. These dimensions are formalization (4 items), professionalization (6 items), cultural power (5 items), and consistency (11 items).

Descriptive statistics were utilized in the study, with factor analysis, t-test and ANOVA test. According to the analysis results, it can be said that the institutionalization levels of the hotels are good (3.76). Specifically, in the consistency dimension, which is one of the components of institutionalization the employees have a rather positive perception (4.09). When compared with the other dimensions of institutionalization, employees have the least positive perception partially in the cultural power dimension (3.46).

As a result of the analysis performed, it was found that the participants' perceptions on formalization, professionalization, cultural power, and consistency vary in accordance with the variables of total employee number, bed capacity, and time in the business of the hotels where they are employed. Generally speaking, it was found that the perceptions of the employees show no difference in accordance with the variable of marital status but the variables of age and level of education play a significant role.

Recommendations

The study is expected to contribute to the body of literature and hotel establishments. The results obtained contribute to the studies on institutionalization in the literature. In addition, the results obtained provide information to business managers about the perceptions of personnel regarding institutionalization. At the same time, variables pertaining to institutionalization can be explained by using different variables, different samples, and different analysis methods.

Limitations

The scope of the present study involves employees of five-star hotel establishments operating in Antalya. Since the results are obtained only from the employees of five-star hotel establishments operating in Antalya, generalizations cannot be made to all businesses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We would like to thank the five-star hotels in Antalya for facilitating data collection. In addition, we would also like to thank all hotel staff who agreed to participate in the study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None

ETHICS STATEMENT: Ethical permissions were obtained from 50 five-star hotels in Antalya to collect data within the scope of the research. Interviews were made with the staff within the framework of the permissions obtained from the hotels. The personnel who volunteered to participate in the study were selected among the personnel who were interviewed.

references

Akça, N. (2010). General Characteristics of Family Enterprises and Institutionalization a Research in Denizli. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, Pamukkale University Institute of Social Sciences, Denizli.

Akkuş, B. & Bilen, A. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between human resource management practices and institutionalization in enterprises. Munzur University Journal of Social Science, 9(1), 38-55.

Akyol, C. & Zengin, B. (2014). The institutionalization problems in tourism sector, family businesses sample. Journal of Academic Review, 41, 1-22.

Alpay, G., Bodur, M. & Yılmaz, C. (2008). Performance implications of institutionalization process in family-owned businesses: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 43(4), 435-448.

Apaydın, F. (2007). The Effects of Organizational Instituonalization and Adaptivecapabilities on Marketing Activities and Organizational Performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gebze Institute of Technology, Institute of Social Sciences, Gebze.

Apaydın, F. (2008). Effects of institutionalization on the performance of small and medium size firms. Zonguldak Karaelmas University Journal of Social Science, 4(7), 121-145.

Aydemir, B., Seymen, A. O., & Taşçı, A. (2004). Institutionalization Process in Family Businesses and a Sectoral Application, 1. Family Business Congress, Proceedings Book, İstanbul Kültür University Publication, 17-18 April 2004, İstanbul, 604-617.

Aylan, S. & Koç, H. (2017). A scale development study to determine institutionalization criteria of enterprises. Gazi University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 19(2), 564-585.

Aylan, S. & Koç, H. (2018). Determining the institutionalization perceptions of hotel employees and analysis of differentiation by business properties. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 6(4), 733-753.

Barnes, L. B. & Hershon, S. A. (1994). Transferring power in the family business. Family Business Review,7(4), 377-392.

Boselie, P., Paauwe, J. & Richardson, R. (2003). Human resource management, institutionalization and organizational performance: a comparison of hospitals, hotels and local government. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(8), 1407-1429.

Broom, L. & Selznick, P. (1955). Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings. New York: Row, Peterson.

Cevher, E. (2014). Is institutionalization a solution or a reason to disappear of small enterprises?, Journal of International Social Research, 7(32), 583-593.

Çakar, M. & Danışman, A. (2012). Institutional Theory. (Edt., Sözen, H. C. & Basım, H.J.). Organizational Theories. İstanbul: Beta Publishing.

Çakır, B. Ö. & Bedük, A. (2013). Employees’ evaluations of enterprise resource planning (ERP) and perceptions of institutionalization. Selcuk University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, (30), 81-91.

Çavuş, M. F. & Demir, Y. (2011). Institutionalization and corporate entrepreneurship in family firms. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 416-422.

Çetinkaya, A. Ş. & Korkmaz, E. V. (2018). Institutionalization and emotional labour behaviour: a research in hospitality organizations. The Journal of Social Economic Research, 18(35), 64-77.

Demirci, B., Ak, E. & Altamimi, M. (2020). The relationship of institutionalisation and job satisfaction in hotel businesses: the case of Eskişehir. Tourism and Recreation, 2(1), 1-7.

Dilbaz, S. (2005). The Management of Family Business in The Growing and Institutionalizing Period: The Case of Karaman, Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, Selçuk University Institute of Social Sciences, Konya.

Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Ferrel, O. C. & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103-109.

Gümüştekin, E. & Adsan, E. (2006). A Research on The Application of Corporate Governance and Corporate Governance Principles in Family Businesses, 2. Family Business Congress, Proceedings Book, İstanbul Kültür University Publication, İstanbul, 14-15, April.

Gürol, Y. (2011). Foundations of Institutionalization in Organizations, (Second Edition). Beta Publishing, İstanbul.

Hodari, D. & Samson, D. (2014). Settling forless: the institutionalization of the hotel feasibility study. The Journal of Hospitality Financial Management, 22(2), 97-110.

Hotel Association of Turkey (TÜROB), (2020). Tourism Management Certified Facilities, http://www.turob.com/tr, (Date of Access: 06.08.2020).

Jaworski, B. J. & Merchant, K. A. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39.

Karacaoğlu, K. & Sözbilen, G. (2013). The effect of institutionalization on corporate entrepreneurship: an application in accommodation establishments in Nevsehir, Anatolia: A Journal of Tourism Research, 24(1), 41-56.

Kızanlıklı, M. M. (2018). An investigation on institutionalization practices of food and beverage establishments. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 6(4), 833-851.

Koçel, T. (2014). Business Management, Beta Publishing, İstanbul.

Kurt, S. & Yeşiltaş, M. (2016). The effect of level of institutionalization on the usage of strategic management tools at tourism management: case of Ankara. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 4(4), 3-19.

Marta, J. K. M., Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D., Sirgy, M. J., Koonmee, K. & Virakul, B. (2013). Perceptions about ethics institutionalization and quality of work life: thaiversus american marketing managers. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 381-389.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as mythand ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Moghaddam, Z. A. & Dehkhodania, A. (2020). Study of feasibility, validity, reliability, and norm-finding of scale of social styles in employees of tehran regional electricity company. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences, 9(1), 9-13.

Özbay, G. & Ellidört, K. Y. (2020). The institutionalization problems of family businesses in the tourism sector: the case of Kocaeli, Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(3), 179-195.

Özen, Ş. (2010). New Institutional Theory: New Horizons and New Problems in the Analysis of Organizations.. (Edt.,Sargut, A. S. & Özen, Ş.). Organizational Theories. Ankara: İmge Bookstore Publications.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson D. J., Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1), 91-114.

Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, (2020), Ministry certified accommodation facility statistics, https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-201136/turizm-yatirim-ve-isletme-bakanlik-belgeli-tesis-istati-.html, (Date of Access: 06.08.2020).

Sboeva, S. G., Klyueva, Y. A., Burdaev, N. I., & Zaharchenko, M. A. (2019). Development of methodical bases for business process management optimization in clinical trials. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research, 9(2), 137-142.

Scott, W. R. & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The Organizations of Societal Sectors. (Edt.,Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W.R.). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. CA: Sage, Beverly Hills.

Selznick, P. (1948). TVA and The Grassroots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organizations, NY: Harper Torch Books.

Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalizm ‘old’ and ‘new’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270-277.

Shmatenko, O., Plieshkova, O., Bielozorova, O., Shmatenko, V., Drozdova, A., Strashnyi, V., Ponomarenko, M. & Koval, A. (2020). Analysis of the ukrainian market of antibacterials for systemic use for the treatment of military personnel with craniocerebral injuries. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 11(2), 176-181.

Şanal, M. (2011). A Study of Family Businesses on Institutionalization and Instutional Entrepreneurship, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.

Tayfun, A., Palavar, K. & Çöp, S. (2010). The relationship between the training of the hotel staff and their level of organizational commitment: a study in five-star hotels in Belek region, Journal of Business Research-Turk, 2(4), 3-18.

Tengilimoğlu, E. & Akgöz, E. (2019). Examination of institutionalization degree according to the business structure: a survey on hotel enterprises. Ömer Halis Demir University Academic Review of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 12(2), 229-251.

Terzi, H. & Pata, U. K. (2016). The contribution of the tourism industry to the Turkey’s economic growth, Erciyes University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, (48), 45-64.

Tolbert, P. S. & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory. (Eds. S. Clegg, S.,Hardy, C. And Nord, W.). Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE.

Türkoğlu, N. & Dalgıç, A. (2017). Impact of institutionalization iın family own edcompanies and elements of intellectual capital on competitive power: a research on hospitality business. The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT), 25, 1-17.

Türkoğlu, N. (2018). Impact of institutionalization in family-owned companies and elements of intellectual capital on competitive power: a research on family-owned hospitality businesses. Anemon Muş Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6), 819-830.

Uzunçarşılı, Ü. Toprak, M. & Ersun, O. (2000), Company culture and business principles. İstanbul Chamber of Commerce Publications, 4, İstanbul.

Yazıcıoğlu, İ. & Koç, H. (2009). Comparative study into the level of institutionalisation of family-run enterprises. Selçuk University The Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 21, 497-507.

Yıldız, A. (2008). Recommendations for Family Businesses, Sistem Publishing, İstanbul.

Yılmaz, Y. & Kitapçı, H. (2017). The impact of strategic human resource management on institutionalization process. Business Management Dynamics, 7(3), 26-38.

Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization iın cultural persistance. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.