Dijital Liderliğin Psikolojik Rahatlığa Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, dijital liderliğin spor bilimleri alanında çalışan akademisyenlerin psikolojik rahatlıkları üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın evrenini Türkiye'de Spor Bilimleri alanında görev yapan akademisyenler, örneklemini ise Türkiye'de Spor Bilimleri alanında görev yapan 378 akademisyen oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmaya 113 Profesör, 86 Doçent, 63 Yrd. prof. doktor, 60 öğretim görevlisi ve 56 araştırma görevlisi. Çalışma grubu tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak Bilginoğlu ve Yozgat (2023) tarafından geliştirilen Dijital Liderlik Ölçeği ve Yener (2015) tarafından geliştirilen Psikolojik Rahatlık Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde özellikleri belirlemek için frekans dağılımı, iki bağımsız değişken arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için t-testi ve ikiden fazla değişken arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki fark p<0,05 anlamlılık düzeyine göre yorumlandı. Araştırma bulguları incelendiğinde cinsiyet değişkeni ile psikolojik rahatlık ve dijital liderlik ölçekleri arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktur. Yaş ve unvan değişkenleri ile psikolojik rahatlık ve dijital liderlik arasında anlamlı farklılıklar vardır. Öte yandan, çalışma yılları ile günlük dijital cihaz kullanım sürelerine göre psikolojik rahatlık düzeyleri arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunurken, dijital liderlik düzeyleri arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spor
• Akademisyen
• Dijital Liderlik
• Psikolojik Rahatlık.

The Effect Of Digital Leadership On Psychological Comfort

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effect of digital leadership on academicians working in the field of sports sciences on their psychological comfort. The population of the study consists of academicians working in the field of Sports Sciences in Turkey, the sample consists of 378 academicians working in the field of Sports Sciences in Turkey. The study included 113 professors, 86 associate professors, 63 asst. Prof. doctors, 60 lecturers, and 56 research assistants. The study group was determined by the random sampling method. The Digital Leadership Scale developed by Bilginoğlu and Yozgat (2023) and the Psychological Comfort Scale developed by Yener (2015) were used as data collection tools. In the data analysis, frequency distribution was used to determine the features, a t-test was used to examine the relationship between two independent variables and a one-way analysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between more than two variables. The difference between the variables was interpreted based on the significance level p<0.05. There is no significant difference between the gender variable and the psychological comfort and digital leadership scales when the research findings are examined. There are significant differences between age and title variables and psychological comfort and digital leadership. On the other hand, while there was a significant difference between psychological comfort levels in working years and daily digital device usage periods, there was no significant difference between digital leadership levels.

Keywords

• Sports
• Academician
• Digital Leadership
• Psychological Comfort.

References

1. Aras, E. (2019). Examination of the opinions of academic staff and sports education students working in sports education ınstitutions on distance education. Master's Thesis. Fırat University, Institute of Health Sciences, Elazığ.
2. Artüz, S. D., and Bayraktar, O. (2021). The effect of relation between digital leadership practice and learning organization on the perception of individual performance. Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(40), 97-120.
3. Asri, A. A. S. M. A. N., and Darma, G. S. (2020). Revealing the digital leadership spurs in 4.0 industrial revolution. International Journal of Business, Economics & Management, 3(1), 93-100.
4. Aydın, K. (2022). The relationship between digital leadership and organizational wisdom in educational organizations. Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University,Turkey.
5. Baer, M., and Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. journal of organizational behavior. The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational And Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
6. Banoğlu, K., Vanderlinde, R., and Çetin, M. (2016). Analysis of the technology leadership profiles of school principals in the context of the learning organizational culture and technological ınfrastructure of schools: F@Tih Project Schools and others. Education and Science, 41, 188.
7. Bilginoğlu, E., and Yozgat, U. (2023). The validity and reliability of the measure for digital leadership: turkish form. ın multidimensional and strategic outlook in digital business transformation: human resource and management recommendations for performance ımprovement. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 53-67.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Scientific research methods (23rd ed.). Pegem Academy.

9. Can, T. (2003). Technological leadership competencies of bolu secondary school administrators. The Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology, 2(3), 94-107.
10. Drucker, P. (1993). The post-capitalist society. Istanbul: İnkılap Publishing House.
11. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams cambridge, MA, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 255-275.
12. Edmonson, A. C. (2003). Psychological safety, trust and learning in organizations, A-Group Level Lens, Retrieved 20 February 2014, Science Direct Database.
13. Geçen, E, Ö. (2010). The effect of organizational commitment and psychological comfort perceptions on y and z generation employees on the ıntention to leave the job: research on a business in ikitelli organized ındustrial zone, Istanbul aydın university institute of graduate education. Department of Business Administration Department of Human Resources Management.
14. Gerstein, J. (2013). Schools Are Doing Education 1.0; Talking About Doing Education 2.0; When They Should Be Planning Education 3.0. User-Generated Education . http://Usergeneratededucation.Wordpress.Com/2013/03/22/Schools-Are-Doing-Education-1–0-Talking-About-Doing-Education-2–0-When-They-Should-Be-Planning-Education-3–0
15. Görgülü, D., Küçükali, R., and Ada, Ş. (2013). Technological Leadership Self-Efficacy of School Administrators. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 3(2).
16. Gürsel, R. K. (2020). The relationship between school principals' technology leadership competencies and technology and social media use. Master's Thesis. Istanbul Sebahattin Zaim University, Institute of Graduate Studies, Istanbul.
17. Horuz, İ., and Taşgit, Y. E. (2020). The relations between employees' perception of psychological security and political tactical behavior, Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 34(4), 1513-1541.
18. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy Of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
19. Mert, G. (2021). A new dimension in the digital world: digital leadership. Satın Alma Dergisi, 9(97), 50-51. Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literatüre. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521-535.
20. Özgür, H. (2013). Examination of the relationship between the adoption and educational use of social networks in terms of various variables. Journal of Dicle University Institute of Social Sciences, 10, 169-181.
21. Pagatpatan, A. A. (2019). Digital leadership of school administrators in relation to teachers and principals performance: İnputs For Techno-Learning Development Model.
22. Parlak, B. (2017). Education in the digital age: an analysis of possibilities and practices. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 22, 1741-1759.
23. Prentice, A. E. (2013). Leadership For The 21st Century. California: Libraries Unlimited.
24. Schepers, J., Jong, A., Wetzels, M. and Ruyter, K., (2007). Psychological safety and social support in gropuware adoption. A multi-level assessment in education. Computers and Education 51, 757-775.
25. Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership; Changing paradigms for changing times. California: Sage Publications.
26. Şakar, M. and Kızılkaya Namlı, A. (2023). Öznel zindeliğin psikolojik sağlamlık üzerindeki etkisinde zihnin istemli ve istemsiz gezinmesinin aracılık rolu . The Online Journal of Recreation and Sports , 12(3) , 352-361 . DOI: 10.22282/tojras.1296627
27. Şişman Eren, E. (2010). Leadership behaviors of primary school principals in providing and using educational technologies. Published Ph.D. Thesis, Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir.
28. Tutar, Ö. F. (2022). The effect of digitalization levels of academicians working in the field of sports sciences on academic performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Fırat University Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Elazığ.
29. Türk, S. (2013). Investigation of the basic psychological needs and satisfaction levels of academicians in terms of various variables. Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University, Turkey.
30. Yener, S. (2015). Investigation of the mediating variable relationship of psychological security perception in the relationship between shared leadership behavior and intention to leave work. Institute of Social Sciences, Haliç University.
31. Yener, S. (2015). Validity and reliability study of the turkish form of psychological comfort perception. ODÜ Journal of Social Research, 1, 280-305.
32. Yener, S. (2015). Validity and reliability study of the turkish form of the psychological comfort scale. Ordu University Institute of Social Sciences Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(13), 280-305.
33. Yılmaz, H., Başat, H. T., and Özer E. A. (2020). Study on the use of ınformation and communication technologies in teaching materials by ınstructors: The case of afyon vocational school. Academy Journal of Social Sciences, 7(21), 42-59.
34. Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.