DSpace Repository

Özyeterlilikten Örgütsel Yeterliliğe: Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Temelinde Bir Değerlendirme

Show simple item record

dc.creator Gogen, Başak
dc.date 2022-07-15
dc.date.accessioned 2025-02-25T10:51:09Z
dc.date.available 2025-02-25T10:51:09Z
dc.identifier https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/vizyoner/issue/74148/1144209
dc.identifier 10.21076/vizyoner.1144209
dc.identifier.uri http://acikerisim.sdu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/103121
dc.description Örgüt araştırmalarında, yönetici davranışlarının temelde iki şekilde ele alındığı görülmektedir. İlki, yöneticilerin kişilik özelliklerine bağlı özyeterliliklerinin öne çıktığı mikro bakış açısıdır. Bu yaklaşıma göre özyeterlilik aktör üzerinden tanımlandığından, yöneticilerin bulunabilecekleri önyargılı ve değişken davranışlar sebebiyle, örgütsel düzeyde kuramsal bir açıklama yapmakta yetersiz kalınmaktadır. Diğeri, söz konusu özyeterliliğin örgütün kişiye verdiği rolün sınırları içerisinde şekillendiğini öngören makro bakış açısıdır. Örgütsel seviyede tanımlanmış̧ yeterlilik standartları, pozisyon olarak yönetici rolünün de sınırlarını belirleyeceğinden, kişiden bağımsız yapısal bir yeterlilikten bahsedilebilecektir. Lider ile takipçileri arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkiye işaret eden Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramı, örgüt içerisindeki rollerin oluşumunu yalnızca lider ile takipçilerinin etkileşimine bağlayan yöntemsel bireyci bakış̧ açısına sahip olması açısından tartışmalıdır. Bu çalışmada, aktör üzerinden tanımlanan özyeterlilik ile yapı üzerinden tanımlanan örgütsel yeterlilik kavramları karşılaştırılmış, varılan sonuçlar Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramına eleştirel bir bakış̧ açısı içerisinde değerlendirilmiştir. Böylece, popüler bir kuram temelinde farklı epistemolojilerin tartışılmasıyla örgüt kuramı yazınına katkı sağlanması hedeflenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, örgütsel yeterliliğin lider ile üye etkileşimindeki nedensel ilişkilere güçlü yapısal açıklamalar getireceği, bunun da konuyu bireysel düzeyde ele alan Lider-Üye Etkileşimi kuramının açıklayıcılarına katkı sağlayacağı sonucuna varılmıştır. 
dc.description In organizational studies, there are basically two approaches in positioning the leader. At micro-organizational level, the definition of self-efficacy of any leader is characterized by his own personality traits. Thus, the efforts towards providing a theoretical explanation at the organizational level in terms of prejudiced and inconsistent behaviors that the leaders may have, becomes incommensurate. On the other hand, macro-organizational approach defines self-efficacy within the boundaries of the role that the organization assigns to the leader. Since the organizationally defined competence standards outline the limits of the managerial role, it would be possible to address structural self-efficacy independent of the agent. The Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), which emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between the leader and his followers, is controversial in terms of having a methodical individualist standpoint that explains the formation of roles within the organization solely on this agency-based interaction. In the study, a critical evaluation of LMX is conducted in terms of different epistemological views. It is expected to make an academic contribution by challenging an agency-based theory by a structuralist approach. As a result, it is argued that organizational efficacy would provide powerful explanations for the causal relationship between leader and member, thus contribute to the LMX theory.
dc.format application/pdf
dc.language tur
dc.publisher Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi
dc.publisher Süleyman Demirel University
dc.relation https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2539988
dc.source Volume: 13, Issue: 30. YönOrg 2022288-303 en-US
dc.source 1308-9552
dc.source Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal eng
dc.source Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi tur
dc.subject Özyeterlilik;Örgütsel Yeterlilik;Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramı;Aktör - Yapı
dc.subject Self-Efficacy;Organizational Efficacy;Leader-Member Exchange Theory;Agency vs Structure
dc.subject Business Administration
dc.subject İşletme
dc.title Özyeterlilikten Örgütsel Yeterliliğe: Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Temelinde Bir Değerlendirme tr-TR
dc.title From Self-Efficacy to Organizational Efficacy: An Evaluation Based on Leader-Member Exchange en-US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.citation Agars, M. ve Kottke, J. L. (2020). Development of a theoretical framework and a measure of general organizational means-efficacy. Human Performance, 34(1), 1-24.
dc.citation Akyavuz, E. K. ve Aşıcı, E. (2021). The effect of volunteer management mentoring program on mentors’ entrepreneurship tendency and leadership self-efficacy. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 1–16.
dc.citation Alexander, J. N. C. ve Weil, H. G. (1969). Players, persons, and purposes: Situational meaning and the prisoner’s dilemma game. Sociometry, 32(2), 121–144.
dc.citation Al-Qatawneh, M. A. (2014). The impact of organizational structure on organizational commitment: A comparison between public and private sector firms in Jordan. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 30-37.
dc.citation Ashforth, B. E. ve Schinoff, B. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(3), 111–137.
dc.citation Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy; Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
dc.citation Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
dc.citation Bandura, A. (1990). Some reflections on reflections. Psychological Inquiry, 1(1), 101-105.
dc.citation Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
dc.citation Barrick, M. R. ve Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359–372.
dc.citation Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
dc.citation Bohn, J. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65–79.
dc.citation Bohn, J. G. (2010). Development and exploratory validation of an organizational efficacy scale. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(3), 227–251.
dc.citation Brewer, M. B. ve Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
dc.citation Burke, P. J. ve Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An Identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(3), 239–251.
dc.citation Burke, P. J. ve Stets, J. E. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 347–366.
dc.citation Cao, D., Tao, H., Wan, Y., Tarhini, A. ve Xia, S. (2020). Acceptance of automation manufacturing technology in China; An examination of perceived norm and organizational efficacy. Production Planning and Control, 31(8), 660–672.
dc.citation Celani, A. ve Tasa, K. (2010). We’re all in this together: Examining associations between collectivistic group norms, collective efficacy and team performance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2010(1), 1–6.
dc.citation Dansereau, F., Graen, G. ve Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role of making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
dc.citation Dienesch, R. M. ve Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634.
dc.citation Du, J., Shin, Y. ve Choi, J. N. (2015). Convergent perceptions of organizational efficacy among team members and positive work outcomes in organizational teams. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 178–202.
dc.citation Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L. ve Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
dc.citation Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific subjective efficacy. M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck ve H. Thierry (Der.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy içinde (s. 65-77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
dc.citation Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C. ve Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 395–406.
dc.citation Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R. ve Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034.
dc.citation Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H. ve Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(3), 244-256.
dc.citation Försterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 495–512.
dc.citation Fuchs, C., Sting, F. J., Schlickel, M. ve Alexy, O. (2019). The ideator’s bias: How identity-induced self-efficacy drives overestimation in employee-driven process innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1498–1522.
dc.citation Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.
dc.citation Gist, M. E. ve Mitchell, T. B. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
dc.citation Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology içinde (s.1201-1245). Rand McNally.
dc.citation Graen, G. B. ve Cahsman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt ve L. L. Larson, (Ed.) Leadership frontiers içinde (s. 143-165). Kent State University.
dc.citation Graen, G. B. ve Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 206–212.
dc.citation Graen, G. B. ve Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
dc.citation Graen, G. B., Orris, D. ve Johnson, T. (1973). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395-420.
dc.citation Günzel-Jensen, F., Jain, A. K. ve Kjeldsen, A. M. (2018). Distributed leadership in health care: The role of formal leadership styles and organizational efficacy. Leadership, 14(1), 110–133.
dc.citation Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F. ve Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.
dc.citation Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358–374.
dc.citation Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. ve Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4(4), 418–428.
dc.citation Higgins, E. T., Klein, R. ve Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3(1), 51–76.
dc.citation Jones, E. E. (1979). Rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.
dc.citation Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
dc.citation Jones, H. B. (2001). Magic, meaning and leadership: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Human Relations, 54(6), 753–771.
dc.citation Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., ve Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
dc.citation Kelley, K. M. ve Bisel, R. S. (2014). Leaders’ narrative sensemaking during LMX role negotiations: Explaining how leaders make sense of who to trust and when. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 433–448.
dc.citation Kuvaas, B. ve Buch, R. (2016). Leader self-efficacy and role ambiguity and follower leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 41(1), 118-132.
dc.citation Liden, R. ve Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-65.
dc.citation Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J. ve Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.
dc.citation Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. ve Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241–251.
dc.citation Markus, H. R. ve Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
dc.citation Matta, F. K. ve Van Dyne, V. (2015), Leader‐member exchange and performance: Where we are and where we go from here. T. N. Bauer ve B. Erdogan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leader‐Member Exchange içinde (s. 157–173). Oxford University Press.
dc.citation Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
dc.citation Ng, K. Y., Ang, S. ve Chan, K.Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.
dc.citation Rennesund, Å. B. ve Saksvik, P. Ø. (2010). Work performance norms and organizational efficacy as cross-level effects on the relationship between individual perceptions of self-efficacy, overcommitment, and work-related stress. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 629–653.
dc.citation Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
dc.citation Salancik, G. R. ve Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power – and how they hold onto it: A strategic contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 76–83.
dc.citation Sargut, A. S. (1995). Bürokrasinin Türkiye’deki darboğazı: Ulusal kültür – makine örgüt uzlaşmazlığı. Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Cilt I, (s. 121- 141). TODAİE Yayınları.
dc.citation Sargut, A. S. (1999). Institutionalization process in collectivist cultures: A cross-cultural approach. Utrecht Business Review, 1(1), 75-87.
dc.citation Scott, W. R. (1987). The Adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.
dc.citation Sosik, J., Potosky, D. ve Jung, D. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation: Meeting others’ expectations of leadership and performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 211–232.
dc.citation Spisak, B. R., O’Brien, M. J., Nicholson, N. ve van Vugt, M. (2015). Niche construction and the evolution of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 291–306.
dc.citation Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N. ve van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences içinde (p. 165-190). Springer.
dc.citation Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 687–706.
dc.citation Stryker, S. ve Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.
dc.citation Taggar, S. ve Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-efficacy and team performance. Human Performance, 16(2), 131–156.
dc.citation Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. J. T. Jost ve J. Sidanius (Ed.), Political psychology: Key readings içinde (s. 276–293). Psychology Press.
dc.citation Taylor, S. E. ve Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249–288.
dc.citation Tsui, A. S. ve Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93.
dc.citation Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K. ve Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
dc.citation Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. ve Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
dc.citation Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
dc.citation Wood, R. ve Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
dc.citation Yaakobi E. (2018). Different types of efficacy – what best predicts behavior? Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 9(4), 381‒384.


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account