The Relationship between Bureaucratic and Professional Orientation and Public Service Motivation: A Qualitative Research on Teachers and School Principals

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 38, 291 - 333, 02.09.2024

Mustafa Arslan , Memiş Bülbül

Öz

Bureaucratic orientation refers to the process of a new employee of the public bureaucracy learning, accepting and internalizing the prominent principles of bureaucracy such as centralism, rule-centeredness, strict control and standardization, and is mostly acquired in public bureaucracy. Professional orientation, on the other hand, is a process in which a new employee learns and internalizes the technical aspects, written and unwritten norms, ethical aspects and values of the profession he/she performs, and is mostly an achievement acquired during the education period. In public bureaucracies, these two orientation processes are not expected to develop simultaneously at the same level. Public service motivation is an approach based on person-organization fit theories, asserting that extrinsic rewards motivate private sector employees at a higher level than public sector employees. It is observed in the literature findings that these three variables have overlapping aspects on the basis of sub-dimensions. It has been evaluated that there is a need for a detailed analysis of the factors that determine the professional orientation levels of teachers and school principals employed in the Turkish primary and secondary education system, as well as the bureaucratic orientation levels they experience after their appointment, and the public service motivation levels, and the parameters in which these variables interact.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bureaucratic Orientation, Professional Orientation, Public Service Motivation

Bürokratik ve Mesleki Uyum ile Kamu Hizmeti Motivasyonu İlişkisi: Öğretmenler ve Okul İdarecileri Üzerinde Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bürokratik uyum, kamu bürokrasisine yeni katılan bireyin bürokrasinin merkeziyetçilik, kural merkezlilik, sıkı denetim, standardizasyon gibi öne çıkan ilkelerini öğrenme, kabullenme ve içselleştirmesine ilişkin süreci ifade eder ve daha çok iş yaşamında kazanılır. Mesleki uyum ise bireyin ifa edeceği mesleğin teknik yönünü, yazılı ve yazısız normlarını, etik yönlerini ve değerlerini öğrendiği ve içselleştirdiği bir süreç olup daha çok eğitim döneminde edinilen bir kazanımdır. Kamu bürokrasilerinde bu iki uyum sürecinin eşzamanlı olarak aynı düzeyde gelişmesi beklenmez. Kamu hizmeti motivasyonu ise uyum teorilerine dayanan, dışsal ödüllerin özel sektör çalışanlarını kam çalışanlarından daha yüksek düzeyde güdüledikleri tezini ileri süren bir yaklaşımdır. Bahsedilen bu üç değişkenin alt boyutlar bazında birbirleriyle örtüşen yönlerinin olduğu literatür bulgularında görülmektedir. Özellikle Türk orta öğretim sisteminde görev yapan öğretmen ve okul idarecilerinin gerek eğitim süreçlerinde edindikleri mesleki uyum ve gerekse atanmaları sonrasında yaşadıkları bürokratik uyum düzeyleri ile kamu hizmeti motivasyon düzeylerini belirleyen faktörler ve bu değişkenlerin etkileşim içinde olduğu parametrelerin detaylı analizine ihtiyaç olduğu değerlendirilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın amacı okul idarecilerinin ve öğretmenlerin bürokratik ve mesleki uyum düzeyleri ile kamu hizmeti motivasyonları üzerinde demografik faktörlerin etkisine ve bu değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin dinamiklerine açıklık getirmektir. Araştırma “X” İlinde görev yapmakta olan ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise okul müdürleri, müdür yardımcıları ve öğretmenler üzerinde yapılmıştır. Araştırma nitel araştırma yöntemiyle geliştirilmiş olup veriler yapılandırılmış görüşme formunun katılımcılara yöneltilmesiyle gerçekleştirilen mülakat tekniği ile derlenmiştir. Araştırmaya toplam 17 idareci ve 17 öğretmen katılmıştır. Araştırmada bürokratik uyum, mesleki uyum ve kamu hizmeti motivasyonu değişkenlerinin yaş, cinsiyet, görev yeri, görev türü, hizmet süresi ve idarecilik süresi faktörlerine bağlı olarak farklılık gösterdiği; sayılan değişkenler arasında ise boyut bazında orta düzeyde ilişkiler olduğu bulgularına ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bürokratik Uyum, Mesleki Uyum, Kamu Hizmeti Motivasyonu, Nitel Metodoloji.

Kaynakça

• ANDERSEN, Lotte Bøgh ve PEDERSEN, Lene Holm, (2012), “Public Service Motivation and Professionalism”, International Journal of Public Administration, XXXV, 1: 46-57.
• BALCI, Ali, (1997), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler, Ankara: A.Ü. Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi. BALCI, Ali (2000), Örgütsel Sosyalleşme Kuram, Strateji ve Taktikler, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• BAŞ, Türker ve AKTURAN, Ulun, (2017), Sosyal Bilimlerde Bilgisayar Destekli Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• BAUER, Talya N. ve GREEN, Stephen G., (1998), “Testing The Combined Effects of Newcomer Information Seeking and Manager Behavior on Socialization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, LXXXIII, 1: 72-83.
• BELLÉ, Nicola ve ONGARO, Edoardo, (2014), “NPM, Administrative Reforms and Public Service Motivation: Improving The Dialogue between Research Agendas”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, LXXX, 0: 382-400.
• BREWER, Gene A., SELDEN, Sally Coleman ve FACER, Rex L., (2000), “Individual Conceptions of Public Service Motivation”, Public Administration Review, LX, 3: 254-264.
• BREWER, Gene A., RITZ, Adrian ve VANDENABEELE, Wouter (2012), “Introduction to a Symposium on Public Service Motivation: An International Sampling of Research”, International Journal of Public Administration, XXXV, 1, 1-4. BRIGHT, Leonard, (2005), “Public Employees With High Levels of Public Service Motivation: Who Are They, Where are They, and What do They Want?”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, XXV, 2: 138-154.
• BUCHANAN, Bruce, (1975), “Red Tape and the Service Ethic”, Administration and Society, VI, 4: 423-444.
• BURGAZ, Berrin, KOÇAK, Seval ve BÜYÜKGÖZE Hilal, (2013), “Öğretmenlerin Mesleki ve Bürokratik Sosyalleştirmeye Yönelik Değerlendirmeleri”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel Sayı, 1: 39-54.
• CHATMAN, Jennifer A., (1991), “Matching People and Organizations, Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, XXXVI, 3: 459-484.
• CHRISTENSEN, Tom, (1991), “Bureaucratic Roles: Political Loyalty and Professional Autonomy”, Scandinavian Political Studies, XIV, 4, 303–320.
• CORWIN, Ronald G., (1963), The Development of An Instrument for Examining Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. U.S. Office of Education, Dept. of Health Education and Welfare, Contract No. 1934.
• CORWIN, Ronald G., (1970), Militant Professionalism. New York: Appleton.
• CRESWELL, John W., (2013), Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing among Five Approaches, (3th Ed.). Sage Publications.
• CRESWELL, John W., & MILLER, Dana L., (2000), “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry”, Theory into Practice, 39(3): 124–130.
• CREWSON, Philip E., (1997), “Public-Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, VII, 4: 499-518.
• DAWIS, Rene V. ve LOFQUIST, Lloyd. H., (1984), A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• DENHARDT, Robert B., (1968), “Bureaucratic Socialization and Organizational Accommodation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Special Issue on Organizations and Social Development, XIII, 3: 441-450.
• EPSTEIN, Irvin, (1970), “Professional Role Orientations and Conflict Strategies”, Social Work, XV, 4: 87-92.
• ESTEVE, Marc, URBIG, Diemo, WITTELOOSTUIJN, Arjen van. ve BOYNE, George A., (2015), “Prosocial Behavior and Public Service Motivation”, Public Administration Review, LXXVI, 1: 177-187.
• GAILMARD, Sean, (2010), “Politics, Principal–Agent Problems, and Public Service Motivation”, International Public Management Journal, XIII, 1: 35-45.
• GRANT, Adam M. ve CAMPBELL, Elizabeth M., (2007), “Doing Good, Doing Harm, Being Well and Burning out: The Interactions of Perceived Prosocial and Antisocial Impact in Service Work”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, LXXX, 665-691.
• GREEN, Stephen G., (1991), “Professional Entry and The Adviser Relationship: Socialization, Commitment and Productivity”, Group and Organization Studies, XVI, 387-407.
• GREENFIELD, William D., (1977), “Administrative Candidacy: A Process of New Role Learning: Part I”, Journal of Educational Administration, XV, 1: 30-48.
• HACKMAN, J. Richard ve LAWLER, Edward E., (1971), “Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, LV, 259-286.
• HAN, Yousueng, (2018), “Is Public Service Motivation Changeable?, Integrative Modeling with Goal-Setting Theory”, International Journal of Public Administration, XLI, 3: 216-225.
• HOUSTON, David J., and CARTWRIGHT, Katherine E., (2007), “Spirituality and Public Service”, Public Administration Review, LXVII, 1: 88-102.
• HOY, Wayne K. ve REES, Richard, (1977), “The Bureaucratic Socialization of Student Teachers”, Journal of Teacher Education, XXVIII, 1: 23-26.
• KARTAL, Sadık, (2009), “Organizational Socialization of Secondary School Principals in Turkish Public Schools”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, XXXVII, 128-143.
• KIM, Sangmook, (2006), “Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Korea”, International Journal of Manpower, XXVII, 8: 722-740.
• KRISTOF-BROWN, Amy L., ZIMMERMAN, Ryan D. ve JOHNSON, Erin C., (2005), “Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit”, Personnel Psychology, LVIII, 2: 281-320.
• KNOKE, David ve WRIGHT-ISAK, Christine, (1982), “Individual Motives and Organizational Incentive Systems”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, I, 209-254.
• KORNHAUSER, William, (1962), Scientists in Industry. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. KUHLMAN, Edward L., ve HOY, Wayne K., (1974), “The Socialization of Professionals into Bureaucracies: The Beginning Teacher in the School”, Journal of Educational Administration, XII, 2: 18-27.
• LEISINK, Peter ve STEIJN, Bram, (2009), “Public Service Motivation and Job Performance of Public Sector Employees in the Netherlands”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, LXXV, 1: 35-52.
• LEWIS, Gregory B. ve FRANK, Sue A., (2002), “Who Wants to Work for the Government?”, Public Administration Review, LXII, 4: 395-404.
• MILLER, George A. ve L. WAGER, Wesley (1971), “Adult Socialization, Organizational Structure, and Role Orientations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, XVI, 2: 151-163.
• MOYNIHAN, Donald P. ve PANDEY, Sanjay K., (2006), “Creating Desirable Organizational Characteristics: How Organizations Create a Focus on Results and Managerial Authority”, Public Management Review, VIII, 1: 119-140.
• MOYNIHAN, Donald P. ve PANDEY, Sanjay K., (2007), “The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation”, Public Administration Review, LXVII, 1: 40-53.
• MUCHINSKY, Paul M. ve MONAHAN, Carlyn J., (1987), “What is Person-Environment Congruence? Supplementary versus Complementary Models of Fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, XXXI, 268-277.
• NAFF, Katherine C. ve CRUM, John, (1999), “Working for America: Does Public Service Motivation Make a Difference?”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, XIX, 4: 5-16
• NEUMANN, Oliver ve RITZ, Adrian, (2015), “Public Service Motivation and Rational Choice Modelling”, Public Money & Management, 35(5): 365-370.
• OLDHAM, Greg R., (1996), “Job Design”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, XI, 33-60.
• O’REILLY, Charles. A., CHATMAN, Jennifer ve CALDWELL, David. F., (1991), “People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit”, Academy of Management Journal, XXXIV, 3: 487-516.
• OTTEKİN DEMİRBOLAT, Ayşe, (2011), “Öğretmenlerin Bürokratik Sosyalleşme Düzeyleri”, Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 1(2): 41-56.
• ÖZTÜRK, Zekai ve DÜNDAR, Hakan, (2003), “Örgütsel Motivasyon ve Kamu Çalışanlarını Motive Eden Faktörler”, C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, IV, 2: 57-67.
• PANDEY, Sanjay. K., WRIGHT, Bradley E. ve MOYNIHAN, Donald P., (2008), “Public Service Motivation and Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior in Public Organizations: Testing a Preliminary Model”, International Public Management Journal, XI, 1: 89-108.
• PARK, Sung Min ve RAINEY, Hal G., (2008), “Leadership and Public Service Motivation in U.S. Federal Agencies”, International Public Management Journal, XI, 109-142.
• PERRY, James L., (1996), “Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, VI, 1: 5-22.
• PERRY, James L., (1997), “Antecedents of Public Service Motivation”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, VII, 2: 181-197
• PERRY, James L. ve PORTER, Lyman W., (1982), “Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, VII, 1: 89-98.
• PERRY, James L. ve WISE, Lois Recascino, (1990), “The Motivational Bases of Public Service”, Public Administration Review, L,3: 367-373.
• RAINEY, Hal G., (1982), “Reward Preferences among Public and Private Managers: In Search of the Service Ethic”, American Review of Public Administration, XVI, 4: 288-302.
• RITZ, Adrian, (2009), “Public Service Motivation and Organizational Performance in Swiss Federal Government”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, LXXV, 1: 53-78.
• ROMZEK, Barbara, (1990), “Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That Bind”, Public Administration Review, XVI, 288-302.
• SCHEIN, Edgar H., (1980), “Organizational Socialization and The Profession of Management”, The Great Writings in Management and Organizational Behavior, The PPC Boks Management Series, (Ed. Louis E. Bone-Donal D. Bowen),Tulsa.
• SCHEIN, Edgar H., (1988), “Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management”, Sloan Management Review, 30(1): 53-65.
• SCHNEIDER, Benjamin, (1987), “The People Make the Place”, Personnel Psychology, XL, 437-453.
• SCOTT, W. Richard, (1965), “Reactions to Supervision in a Heteronomous Professional Organization”, Administrative Science Quarterly-Special Issue on Professionals in Organizations, X, 1: 65-81.
• SCOTT, Patrick G., ve PANDEY, Sanjay K., (2005), “Red Tape and Public Service Motivation: Findings from a National Survey of Managers in State Health and Human Services Agencies”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, XXV, 2: 155-80.
• SCHWARZ, Gary, NEWMAN, Aleaxander, COOPER, Brian ve EVA, Nathan, (2016), “Servant Leadership and Follower Job Performance: The Mediating Effect of Public Service Motivation”, Public Administration, XCVI, 4: 1025-1041 SILVERMAN, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research (Fifth Edition). SAGE Publications.
• SORENSEN, James E. (1967), “Professional and Bureaucratic Organization in the Public Accounting Firm”, The Accounting Review, XLII, 3: 553-565.
• STAZYK, Edmund C. ve DAVIS, Randall S., (2015), “Taking the High Road: Does Public Service Motivation alter Ethical Decision Making Processes?”, Public Administration, XCIII, 3: 627-645.
• TAYLOR, Jeannette, (2007), “The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia: A Comparative Multi-Dimensional Analysis”, Public Administration, LXXXV, 4: 931-959.
• VANDENABEELE, Wouter, (2008), “Development of A Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry’s Measurement Instrument”, International Public Management Journal, XI, 143- 167.
• VANDENABEELE, Wouter, (2011), “Who Wants to Deliver Public Service? Do Institutional Antecedents of Public Service Motivation Provide an Answer?”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, XXXI, 1: 87-107.
• VANDENABEELE, Wouter ve WALLE, Steven, (2007), “Public Service Motivation: state of the science and art”, The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, (Ed. Perry J.L.-Hondeghem, A.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223-244.
• WRIGHT, Bradley E., (2001), “Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, II, 4: 559-586
• WRIGHT, B. E. ve PANDEY, Sanjay K., (2008), “Public Service Motivation and the Assumption of Person-Organization Fit: Testing the Mediating Effect of Value Congruence”, Administration & Society, XL, 502-521.