BibTex RIS Cite

AKADEMİK PERSONELİN KURUMLARINA İLİŞKİN ALGILADIKLARI VE TERCİH ETTİKLERİ ÖRGÜT KÜLTÜRÜ TİPLERİ

Year 2010, Issue: 36, 73 - 88, 20.05.2015

Ramazan Erdem , Orhan Adıgüzel Aslı Kaya

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Fırat Üniversitesi örneğiyle, akademik personelin kurumlarını ilişkilendirdikleri ve tercih ettikleri örgüt kültürü eğilimleri, Cameron ve Quinn’in “rekabetçi değerler modeli” çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Modelde klan, adhokrasi,  hiyerarşi ve pazar kültürü olmak üzere dört örgüt kültürü tipi bulunmaktadır. Akademik personelden 100 puanı her bir örgüt kültürü tipine ilişkin ifadelere dağıtması istenmiştir. Mevcut uygulamalar çerçevesinde akademik personelin çalıştığı kurumu dört örgüt kültürü tipi ile ne kadar ilişkilendirdiği ve yine dört örgüt kültürü tipinden hangisinin ne kadar olması gerektiği ortaya konmuş ve mevcut durum ile olması gereken durum kıyaslanmıştır. 150 akademik personelin katıldığı çalışmanın verileri 2009 yılı Kasım ve Aralık aylarında toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonucuna göre; akademik personel çalıştığı kurumu, daha çok hiyerarşi ve pazar kültürü ile ilişkilendirmiş ancak egemen olması gereken örgüt kültürü tipinin daha çok adhokrasi ve klan kültürü olduğunu belirtmiştir. Demografik değişkenlerin çalışılan kurumun ilişkilendirildiği ve olması gereken örgüt kültürü tipleri ile ilgili herhangi bir anlamlı etkiye sahip olmadığı da tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Örgüt Kültürü Akademik Personel Hiyerarşi Kültürü Pazar Kültürü Adhokrasi Kültürü Klan Kültürü.

References

  • AKBABA Atilla; (2002), “Örgütsel Kültür”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(3), ss. 1–32.
  • ASHKANASY Neal M; Celeste P. M. WILDEROM ve Mark F. PETERSON; (2000), Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, Sage Publications, 629s.
  • BERBEROĞLU Güneş; Senem BESLER ve Zümrüt TONUS; (1998), “Örgüt Kültürü: Ankara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Ör- güt Kültürü Araştırması”, Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bi- limler Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-2, ss. 29-52.
  • CAMERON Kim S.; (2008), Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance, Berrett Koehler Publishers, 132s.
  • CAMERON Kim S.; (2005), Organizational Effectiveness: Its Demise and Re-emergence Through Positive Organizational Scholarship, Michigan Ross School of Business, Handbook of Management Theory: The Process of Theory Development, Oxford University Press, London, ss. 1-24.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve R. S. QUINN; (1992), Report on “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture”, Massachusetts, Adison-Wesley, 242s.
  • CAMERON Kim ve Sarah J. FREEMAN; (1991), “Cultural Congruence, Strength and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, ss. 23–58.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve David A. WHETTEN; (1996), “Organizational Effectiveness and Quality: The Second Generation”, Handbook of Theory and Research, 11, ss. 265–306.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve David A. WHETTEN; (1981), “Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness Over Organizational Life Cycles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), ss. 525–544.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve Mary TSCHIRHART; (1992), “Postindustrial Environments and Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and Universities”, The Journal of Higher Education, 63(1), ss. 87–108.
  • CAN Halil; Öznur AŞAN ve Eren MİSKİ; (2006), Örgütsel Davranış, Arıkan Basım, 469s.
  • ÇETİN ÖLÇÜM Münevver; (2004), Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel Bağlılık, Nobel Yayınları, Ankara, 150s.
  • DURĞUN Serpil; (2006), “Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel İletişim”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, ss. 112–132.
  • ERDEM Ramazan; (2007), “Örgüt Kültürü Tipleri İle Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasın- daki İlişki”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2(2), ss. 63–79.
  • EREN Erol; (2000), Örgütsel Davranış Ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, Beta Yayın- ları, İstanbul,597s.
  • ERGÜN Ercan; (2007), “Kurum Kültürünü Analiz Etmede Quinn ve Cameron’un Rekabetçi Değerler Analizi”, 15. Yönetim Ve Organi- zasyon Kongresi, ss. 266–271.
  • HULT G. Tomas M.; David J KETCHEN ve Ernest L. NICHOLS; (2002), “ An Examination of Cultural Competitiveness and Order Fulfillment Cycle Time Within Supply Chains”, The Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), ss. 577–586.
  • KÖSE Sevinç ve Aylin ÜNAL; (2003), Farklı Toplumsal Kültürler Örgüt Yapıları Liderlik Davranışları, İmaj Basım, İzmir,153s.
  • LUND Daulatram B.; (2003), “Organizational Culture ve Job Satisfaction”, The Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, 18(3), ss. 219–236.
  • NAMAN John L. ve Dennis P. SLAVIN; (1993), “Entrepreneurship and The Concept of Fit: A model and Emprical Test”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, ss. 137–153.
  • NICHOLS Ernest L; Donna Retzlaff ROBERTS ve Mark N. FROLICK; (1996), “Reducing Order Fullfillment Cycle Time in an International Supply Chain”, Cycle Time Research, 2(1), ss, 13–31.
  • ÖCAL Hülya ve Veysel AĞCA; (2010), “Teknolojik Değişim Hızına Bağlı Olarak Farklılaşan Endüstri Yapılarının Örgüt Kültürü Ve İşletme Performansı Üzerine Etkileri”, Ege Üniversitesi Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 10(1), ss. 157–182.
  • OGBONNA Emmanuel ve Lloyd C. HARRIS; (2000), “Leadership Style, organizational culture and performance: emprical evidence from UK companies”, Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), ss. 766-788.
  • PARKER Martin; (2003), Organizational Culture and Identity, Sage Publications, Britain, 272s.
  • POTHUKUCHI Vijay; Fariborz DAMANPOUR; Jaepil CHOI; Chao C. CHEN ve Seung Ho PARK; (2002), “National and Organizational Culture Differences and International Joint Venture Performance”, Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), ss. 243–265.
  • POWYS COWPER John; (2006), The Meaning of Culture, Barns and Nobles, USA, 320s.
  • SCHEIN Edgard H.; (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, USA, 436s.
  • SCOTT Tim; Russell MANNION; Huw DAVIES ve Martin MARSHALL; (2003), “The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments”, Health Services Research, 38(3), ss. 923–945.
  • UBIUS Ülle ve Ruth ALAS; (2009), “Organizational Culture Types as Predictors of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Engineering Economics, 1(61), ss. 90-99.
  • ZAMMUTO, Raymond F. ve Jack Y. KRAKOWER; (1991), “Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Organizational Culture”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, ss. 83–114.

Year 2010, Issue: 36, 73 - 88, 20.05.2015

Ramazan Erdem , Orhan Adıgüzel Aslı Kaya

Abstract

References

  • AKBABA Atilla; (2002), “Örgütsel Kültür”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(3), ss. 1–32.
  • ASHKANASY Neal M; Celeste P. M. WILDEROM ve Mark F. PETERSON; (2000), Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, Sage Publications, 629s.
  • BERBEROĞLU Güneş; Senem BESLER ve Zümrüt TONUS; (1998), “Örgüt Kültürü: Ankara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Ör- güt Kültürü Araştırması”, Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bi- limler Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-2, ss. 29-52.
  • CAMERON Kim S.; (2008), Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance, Berrett Koehler Publishers, 132s.
  • CAMERON Kim S.; (2005), Organizational Effectiveness: Its Demise and Re-emergence Through Positive Organizational Scholarship, Michigan Ross School of Business, Handbook of Management Theory: The Process of Theory Development, Oxford University Press, London, ss. 1-24.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve R. S. QUINN; (1992), Report on “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture”, Massachusetts, Adison-Wesley, 242s.
  • CAMERON Kim ve Sarah J. FREEMAN; (1991), “Cultural Congruence, Strength and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, ss. 23–58.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve David A. WHETTEN; (1996), “Organizational Effectiveness and Quality: The Second Generation”, Handbook of Theory and Research, 11, ss. 265–306.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve David A. WHETTEN; (1981), “Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness Over Organizational Life Cycles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), ss. 525–544.
  • CAMERON Kim S. ve Mary TSCHIRHART; (1992), “Postindustrial Environments and Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and Universities”, The Journal of Higher Education, 63(1), ss. 87–108.
  • CAN Halil; Öznur AŞAN ve Eren MİSKİ; (2006), Örgütsel Davranış, Arıkan Basım, 469s.
  • ÇETİN ÖLÇÜM Münevver; (2004), Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel Bağlılık, Nobel Yayınları, Ankara, 150s.
  • DURĞUN Serpil; (2006), “Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel İletişim”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, ss. 112–132.
  • ERDEM Ramazan; (2007), “Örgüt Kültürü Tipleri İle Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasın- daki İlişki”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 2(2), ss. 63–79.
  • EREN Erol; (2000), Örgütsel Davranış Ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, Beta Yayın- ları, İstanbul,597s.
  • ERGÜN Ercan; (2007), “Kurum Kültürünü Analiz Etmede Quinn ve Cameron’un Rekabetçi Değerler Analizi”, 15. Yönetim Ve Organi- zasyon Kongresi, ss. 266–271.
  • HULT G. Tomas M.; David J KETCHEN ve Ernest L. NICHOLS; (2002), “ An Examination of Cultural Competitiveness and Order Fulfillment Cycle Time Within Supply Chains”, The Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), ss. 577–586.
  • KÖSE Sevinç ve Aylin ÜNAL; (2003), Farklı Toplumsal Kültürler Örgüt Yapıları Liderlik Davranışları, İmaj Basım, İzmir,153s.
  • LUND Daulatram B.; (2003), “Organizational Culture ve Job Satisfaction”, The Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, 18(3), ss. 219–236.
  • NAMAN John L. ve Dennis P. SLAVIN; (1993), “Entrepreneurship and The Concept of Fit: A model and Emprical Test”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, ss. 137–153.
  • NICHOLS Ernest L; Donna Retzlaff ROBERTS ve Mark N. FROLICK; (1996), “Reducing Order Fullfillment Cycle Time in an International Supply Chain”, Cycle Time Research, 2(1), ss, 13–31.
  • ÖCAL Hülya ve Veysel AĞCA; (2010), “Teknolojik Değişim Hızına Bağlı Olarak Farklılaşan Endüstri Yapılarının Örgüt Kültürü Ve İşletme Performansı Üzerine Etkileri”, Ege Üniversitesi Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 10(1), ss. 157–182.
  • OGBONNA Emmanuel ve Lloyd C. HARRIS; (2000), “Leadership Style, organizational culture and performance: emprical evidence from UK companies”, Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), ss. 766-788.
  • PARKER Martin; (2003), Organizational Culture and Identity, Sage Publications, Britain, 272s.
  • POTHUKUCHI Vijay; Fariborz DAMANPOUR; Jaepil CHOI; Chao C. CHEN ve Seung Ho PARK; (2002), “National and Organizational Culture Differences and International Joint Venture Performance”, Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), ss. 243–265.
  • POWYS COWPER John; (2006), The Meaning of Culture, Barns and Nobles, USA, 320s.
  • SCHEIN Edgard H.; (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, USA, 436s.
  • SCOTT Tim; Russell MANNION; Huw DAVIES ve Martin MARSHALL; (2003), “The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments”, Health Services Research, 38(3), ss. 923–945.
  • UBIUS Ülle ve Ruth ALAS; (2009), “Organizational Culture Types as Predictors of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Engineering Economics, 1(61), ss. 90-99.
  • ZAMMUTO, Raymond F. ve Jack Y. KRAKOWER; (1991), “Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Organizational Culture”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, ss. 83–114.
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Ramazan Erdem

Orhan Adıgüzel This is me

Aslı Kaya This is me

Publication Date May 20, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2010 Issue: 36

Cite

APA Erdem, R., Adıgüzel, O., & Kaya, A. (2015). AKADEMİK PERSONELİN KURUMLARINA İLİŞKİN ALGILADIKLARI VE TERCİH ETTİKLERİ ÖRGÜT KÜLTÜRÜ TİPLERİ. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(36), 73-88.

Ethical Principles and Ethical Guidelines

The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences places great emphasis on publication ethics, which serve as a foundation for the impartial and reputable advancement of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal adopts a publishing approach aligned with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to preventing potential malpractice. The following ethical responsibilities, established based on COPE’s principles, are expected to be upheld by all stakeholders involved in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publishers, reviewers, and editors).

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Make decisions on submissions based on the quality and originality of the work, its alignment with the journal's aims and scope, and the reviewers’ evaluations, regardless of the authors' religion, language, race, ethnicity, political views, or gender.
Respond to information requests from readers, authors, and reviewers regarding the publication and evaluation processes.
Conduct all processes without compromising ethical standards and intellectual property rights.
Support freedom of thought and protect human and animal rights.
Ensure the peer review process adheres to the principle of double-blind peer review.
Take full responsibility for accepting, rejecting, or requesting changes to a manuscript and ensure that conflicts of interest among stakeholders do not influence these decisions.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
Submitted works must be original. When utilizing other works, proper and complete citations and/or references must be provided.
A manuscript must not be under review by another journal simultaneously.
Individuals who have not contributed to the experimental design, implementation, data analysis, or interpretation should not be listed as authors.
If requested during the review process, datasets used in the manuscript must be provided to the editorial board.
If a significant error or mistake is discovered in the manuscript, the journal’s editorial office must be notified.
For studies requiring ethical committee approval, the relevant document must be submitted to the journal. Details regarding the ethical approval (name of the ethics committee, approval document number, and date) must be included in the manuscript.
Changes to authorship (e.g., adding or removing authors, altering the order of authors) cannot be proposed after the review process has commenced.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Accept review assignments only in areas where they have sufficient expertise.
Agree to review manuscripts in a timely and unbiased manner.
Ensure confidentiality of the reviewed manuscript and not disclose any information about it, during or after the review process, beyond what is already published.
Refrain from using information obtained during the review process for personal or third-party benefit.
Notify the journal editor if plagiarism or other ethical violations are suspected in the manuscript.
Conduct reviews objectively and avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
Use polite and constructive language during the review process and avoid personal comments.
Publication Policy
The Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is a free, open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal that has been in publication since 1981. The journal welcomes submissions in Turkish and English within the fields of economics, business administration, public finance, political science, public administration, and international relations.

No submission or publication fees are charged by the journal.
Every submitted manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review process and similarity/plagiarism checks via iThenticate.
Submissions must be original and not previously published, accepted for publication, or under review elsewhere.
Articles published in the journal can be cited under the Open Access Policy and Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is given.
The journal is published three times a year, in April, August, and December. It includes original, high-quality, and scientifically supported research articles and reviews in its listed fields. Academic studies unrelated to these disciplines or their theoretical and empirical foundations are not accepted. The journal's languages are Turkish and English.

Submissions are first subject to a preliminary review for format and content. Manuscripts not meeting the journal's standards are rejected by the editorial board. Manuscripts deemed suitable proceed to the peer review stage.

Each submission is sent to at least two expert reviewers. If both reviews are favorable, the article is approved for publication. In cases where one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides based on the reviews or may send the manuscript to a third reviewer.

Articles published in the journal are open access and can be cited under the Creative Commons license, provided proper attribution is made.