The Use of Grounded Theory in Management Studies: A Comparative Analysis of Doctoral Dissertations in Business

Abstract

With the growing interest in qualitative research, the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) has gained prominence in management studies for explaining complex and multilayered organizational phenomena. This study comparatively examines five doctoral dissertations conducted in Turkey that employed GTM in the fields of business and management, offering an integrated evaluation of their methodological practices, coding approaches, trustworthiness strategies, and theoretical contributions. Four dissertations adopted the systematic GTM approach, while one used the classical version; all followed an inductive logic aimed at generating theory directly from data. Data collection processes were supported by in-depth interviews, systematic memo writing, and theoretical sampling, and all studies applied strategies aligned with accepted trustworthiness criteria in qualitative inquiry.

The theoretical models produced across the five dissertations converge around three key themes: family business dynamics, leadership and identity transformation, and the interplay between cultural values and rationality. Within family business dynamics, the studies developed the “Retirement in the Grave” model, which explains founders’ succession-related anxieties, and the “Power Struggle Model,” identifying intra-family power competition as the core phenomenon influencing strategic decisions. Under leadership and identity transformation, the “River Seeking the Sea” model describes leaders’ processes of confronting and integrating their shadow aspects, while the “Vocation–Member Exchange” conceptualization illustrates how professional socialization shapes and transforms individual personality. In the realm of cultural values and rationality, the “Janissary–Mercenary” conceptualization shows how cultural belief systems structure strategic decision behaviors.

These findings demonstrate that decision-making processes in the Turkish management context cannot be adequately explained through purely rational assumptions; socio-emotional, cultural, and relational dynamics play a defining role. Overall, the study confirms GTM’s capacity to generate context-specific, middle-range theories in the field of business and highlights strong examples of methodological rigor. Future research is encouraged to examine and validate these theoretical models across diverse organizational settings.