Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

YÖNETİCİLERLE AÇIKÇA KONUŞABİLME DÜZEYİNİN GENEL KONUŞMA NEDENLERİNE ETKİSİ: ÜNİVERSİTELERDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2013, Issue: 41, 111 - 136, 21.05.2015

İbrahim Durak

Abstract

Günümüz küresel rekabet ortamında üniversiteler bilimsel bilgi üretmenin ve paylaşmanın merkezi konumundadırlar. Öğretim elemanları farklı, yeni ve yaratıcı çeşitli fikirlere sahiptirler.  Bunları açığa çıkarıp üretim sürecine katabilmenin yollarından biri de yöneticileriyle açıkça konuşabilmeleridir. Araştırmanın amacı ülkemiz üniversitelerinde görev yapan öğretim elemanlarının yöneticileriyle (bölüm başkanı, dekan rektör vb.) açıkça konuşabilme düzeyinin onlarla genel olarak konuşabilme nedenlerine etkisini belirlemeye yöneliktir. Araştırmada öğretim elemanlarının çeşitli konularda yöneticileriyle konuşmalarının, onlarla açıkça konuşabilme durumuna göre genel olarak farklılık gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Yöneticileriyle açıkça konuşabilen öğretim elemanlarının,  çeşitli nedenlerle konuşma eğilimleri genel olarak daha yüksek çıkmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuç bölümünde ise, öğretim elemanlarının kurumlarında daha çok konuşabilmeleri için çeşitli öneriler yer almaktadır.

Keywords

Akademik Personel Konuşma Açıkça Konuşma.

References

  • AKTAN, Coşkun Can; (2006), “Organizasyonlarda Yanlış Uygulamalara Karşı Bir Sivil Erdem, Ahlaki Tepki ve Vicdani Red Davranışı: Whistleb- lowing”, Mercek Dergisi, Ekim, ss.1-13.
  • AMAH, Okey E. and Chiwuba A. OKAFOR; (2008), “Relationship Among Silence Climate, Employee Silence Behavior and Work Attitudes: The Role of Self- Esteem and Locus of Control”, Asian Journal of Scien- tific Research 1 (1), pp.1-11.
  • ASHCRAFT, Karen Lee; (2000), “Hearing Silence: Organizing From An Aest- hetic Perspective”: Human Studies, 23, pp.413-421.
  • AVERY, Derek R. and Miguel A. QUINONES; (2004), “Individual Differen- ces and the Voice Effect: The Moderating Role of Value of Voice”, Group & Organization Management, 1, pp.106-124.
  • BANERJEE, Abhijit and Rohini SOMANATHAN; (2001), “A Simple Model of Voice”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, pp.189-227.
  • BOTERO, Isabel C. and Linn Van DYNE; (2009), “Employee Voice Behavior Interactive Effects of LMX and Power Distance in the United States and Colombia”, Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), pp.84- 104.
  • BRINSFIELD, Chad T.; (2009), “Employee Silence: Investigation of Dimensi- onality, Development of Measures and Examination of Related Fac- tors”, Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
  • ÇAKICI, Ayşehan; (2007), “Örgütlerde Sessizlik: Sessizliğin Teorik Temelleri ve Dinamikleri”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), ss.145-162.
  • ÇAKICI, Ayşehan; (2010), Örgütlerde İşgören Sessizliği, Neden Sessiz Kal- mayı Tercih Ediyoruz?, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • DOZIER, Janelle Brinker and Marcia P. MICELI; (1985), “Potential Predictors of Whistle-Blowing A Prosocial Behavior Perspective”, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp.823-836.
  • DURAK, İbrahim; (2012), Korku Kültürü ve Örgütsel Sessizlik, Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
  • DUTTON, Jane E. and Susan J. ASHFORD; (1993), “Selling Issues to Top Management”, The Academy of Management Review, 18(3), pp.397- 428.
  • EDWARDS, Marissa S.; Neal M. ASHKANASY and John GARDNER; (2009), “Deciding to Speak Up or To Remain Sılent Following Obser- ved Wrongdoing: The Role of Discrete Emotions and Climate of Silen- ce”, in J. GREENBERG and M. EDWARDS (Ed.), Voice and Silence in Organizations, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.83- 109.
  • EHTİYAR, Rüya and Melek YANARDAĞ; (2008), “Organızational Silence: A Survey on Employees Working In A Chain Hotel”, Tourism and Hos- pitality Management, 14(1), pp.51-68.
  • ELLIS, Jennifer Butler and Linn Van DYNE; (2009), “Voice and Silence as Observers’ Reactions to Defensive Voice: Predictions Based on Commmunication Competence Theory”, in Jerald GREENBERG and Marissa S. EDWARRDS (Ed.), Voice and Silence in Organizations, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 37-62.
  • GAO, Liping; Onne JANSSEN and Kan SHI; (2011), “Leader Trust And Emp- loyee Voice: The Moderating Role Of Empowering Leader Behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 787-798.
  • GORDEN, William I.; (1988), “Range of Employee Voice”, Employee Res- ponsibilities and Rights Journal, 1(4), pp.283-297.
  • GRAHAM, J.W.; (1986), “Principled Organizational Dissent a Theoretical Essay”, Re- search in Organizational Behavior, 8, pp.1-52.
  • GRENNY, Joseph, David MAXFİELD and Andrew SHIMBERG; (2007), “How Project Leaders Can Overcome the Crisis of Silence, MIT Sloan Management Review, April, pp.46.52.
  • HIRSCHMAN, Albert O.;(1970), Exit, Voice and Royalty, Cambrid- ge:Harvard University Press.
  • KASSING, Jeffrey W.; (2009), “Breaking the Chain of Command, Making Sense of Employee Circumvention”, Journal of Business Communi- cation, 46(3), pp.311-334.
  • LANDAU, Jacqueline; (2009a), “When Employee Voice is Met by Deaf Ears”, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 74(1), pp.4-12.
  • LANDAU, Jacqueline; (2009b), “To Speak or Not To Speak: Predictors of Voi- ce Propensity”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications And Conflict, 13(1), pp.35-54.
  • MCKAY, Matthew; Martha DAVIS ve Patric FANNING; (2012), İletişim Be- cerileri, Çev.: Özgür GELBAL, Ankara: HYB Yayıncılık.
  • NEAR, Janet P. and Marcia P. MICELI; (1985), “Organizational Dissidence: The Case of whistle-Blowing”, Journal of Business Ethics, 4, pp.1-16.
  • NIKOLAOU, Ioannis; Maria VAKOLA and Dimitris BOURANTAS; (2008), “Who Speaks Up At Work? Dispositional Influences On Employees’ Voice Behavior”, Personnel Review, 37(6), pp.666-679.
  • PINDER, Craig C. and Karen P. HARLOS; (2001), “Employee Silence: Quies- cence and Acquiescence as Responses Perceived Injustice”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, pp.331-369.
  • POTTER, Paula W.; (2006), “Procedural Justice, Voice Effects and Sham: Examining The Decision Maker From a Research Context Perspective”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 10(2), pp.61-76.
  • PREMEAUX, Sonya Fontenot; (2001), “Breaking Silence: Toward an Unders- tanding of Speaking Up in the Workplace”, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  • PREMEAUX, Sonya Fontenot and Arthur G. BEDEIAN; (2003), “Breaking Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self-Monitoring in Predicting Spea- king Up in the Workplace”, Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), pp.1537-1562.
  • RECKERS-SAUCIUC, Ashley K. and D. Jordan LOWE; (2010), “The Influen- ce Of Dispositional Affect On Whistle-Blowing”, Advances in Acco- unting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 26, pp.259-269.
  • SHAHINPOOR, Nasrin and Bernard F. MATT; (2007), “The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life”, Journal of Business Ethics, 74, pp.37-48.
  • TEO, Hayden and Donella CASPERSZ; (2011), “Dissenting Discourse: Explo- ring Alternatives to the Whistleblowing/Silence Dichotomy” Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), pp.237-249.
  • TÜRKEŞ, Günay Umay; (2009), Türk Kültürüne Eleştiri, Birinci Baskı, Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları.
  • URAL, Ayhan ve İbrahim KILIÇ; (2005), Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • VAN DYNE, Linn; Soon ANG and Isabel C. BOTERO; (2003), “Conceptuali- zing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), pp.1359-1392.
  • VERHEZEN, Peter; (2010), “Giving Voice in a Culture of Silence. From a Cul- ture of Compliance to a Culture of Integrity”, Journal of Business Et- hics, 96, pp.187-206.
  • WALDRON, Vincent R. And James SANDERSON; (2011), “The Role of Sub- jective Threat in Upward Influence Situations”, Communication Quar- terly, 59(2), pp.239-254.

THE EFFECT OF SPEAKING UP TO SUPERIORS ON GENERALLY REASONS OF STAFF VOICE: A STUDY IN UNIVERSITIES

Year 2013, Issue: 41, 111 - 136, 21.05.2015

İbrahim Durak

Abstract

Universities are the focal point of scientific knowledge production and share in today’s competitive life. Academicians have different , new and creative ideas. One way to disseminate this creativity is to speak up to administrative superiors (i.e. chairmen, dean and rector). The aim of this study is to determine academic staff’s voice toadministrative superiors is different or not according to speaking up to them. It is found that speaking up levels are generally definitive on academicians’ voice to administrative superiors. In the study it is found generally differences between academician’s voice to administrator superiors and spekaing up to them. In the results section there are some proposals for academicians more speaking up in their institutions

Keywords

Academic Staff Voice Speaking Up

References

  • AKTAN, Coşkun Can; (2006), “Organizasyonlarda Yanlış Uygulamalara Karşı Bir Sivil Erdem, Ahlaki Tepki ve Vicdani Red Davranışı: Whistleb- lowing”, Mercek Dergisi, Ekim, ss.1-13.
  • AMAH, Okey E. and Chiwuba A. OKAFOR; (2008), “Relationship Among Silence Climate, Employee Silence Behavior and Work Attitudes: The Role of Self- Esteem and Locus of Control”, Asian Journal of Scien- tific Research 1 (1), pp.1-11.
  • ASHCRAFT, Karen Lee; (2000), “Hearing Silence: Organizing From An Aest- hetic Perspective”: Human Studies, 23, pp.413-421.
  • AVERY, Derek R. and Miguel A. QUINONES; (2004), “Individual Differen- ces and the Voice Effect: The Moderating Role of Value of Voice”, Group & Organization Management, 1, pp.106-124.
  • BANERJEE, Abhijit and Rohini SOMANATHAN; (2001), “A Simple Model of Voice”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, pp.189-227.
  • BOTERO, Isabel C. and Linn Van DYNE; (2009), “Employee Voice Behavior Interactive Effects of LMX and Power Distance in the United States and Colombia”, Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), pp.84- 104.
  • BRINSFIELD, Chad T.; (2009), “Employee Silence: Investigation of Dimensi- onality, Development of Measures and Examination of Related Fac- tors”, Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
  • ÇAKICI, Ayşehan; (2007), “Örgütlerde Sessizlik: Sessizliğin Teorik Temelleri ve Dinamikleri”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), ss.145-162.
  • ÇAKICI, Ayşehan; (2010), Örgütlerde İşgören Sessizliği, Neden Sessiz Kal- mayı Tercih Ediyoruz?, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • DOZIER, Janelle Brinker and Marcia P. MICELI; (1985), “Potential Predictors of Whistle-Blowing A Prosocial Behavior Perspective”, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp.823-836.
  • DURAK, İbrahim; (2012), Korku Kültürü ve Örgütsel Sessizlik, Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
  • DUTTON, Jane E. and Susan J. ASHFORD; (1993), “Selling Issues to Top Management”, The Academy of Management Review, 18(3), pp.397- 428.
  • EDWARDS, Marissa S.; Neal M. ASHKANASY and John GARDNER; (2009), “Deciding to Speak Up or To Remain Sılent Following Obser- ved Wrongdoing: The Role of Discrete Emotions and Climate of Silen- ce”, in J. GREENBERG and M. EDWARDS (Ed.), Voice and Silence in Organizations, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.83- 109.
  • EHTİYAR, Rüya and Melek YANARDAĞ; (2008), “Organızational Silence: A Survey on Employees Working In A Chain Hotel”, Tourism and Hos- pitality Management, 14(1), pp.51-68.
  • ELLIS, Jennifer Butler and Linn Van DYNE; (2009), “Voice and Silence as Observers’ Reactions to Defensive Voice: Predictions Based on Commmunication Competence Theory”, in Jerald GREENBERG and Marissa S. EDWARRDS (Ed.), Voice and Silence in Organizations, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 37-62.
  • GAO, Liping; Onne JANSSEN and Kan SHI; (2011), “Leader Trust And Emp- loyee Voice: The Moderating Role Of Empowering Leader Behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 787-798.
  • GORDEN, William I.; (1988), “Range of Employee Voice”, Employee Res- ponsibilities and Rights Journal, 1(4), pp.283-297.
  • GRAHAM, J.W.; (1986), “Principled Organizational Dissent a Theoretical Essay”, Re- search in Organizational Behavior, 8, pp.1-52.
  • GRENNY, Joseph, David MAXFİELD and Andrew SHIMBERG; (2007), “How Project Leaders Can Overcome the Crisis of Silence, MIT Sloan Management Review, April, pp.46.52.
  • HIRSCHMAN, Albert O.;(1970), Exit, Voice and Royalty, Cambrid- ge:Harvard University Press.
  • KASSING, Jeffrey W.; (2009), “Breaking the Chain of Command, Making Sense of Employee Circumvention”, Journal of Business Communi- cation, 46(3), pp.311-334.
  • LANDAU, Jacqueline; (2009a), “When Employee Voice is Met by Deaf Ears”, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 74(1), pp.4-12.
  • LANDAU, Jacqueline; (2009b), “To Speak or Not To Speak: Predictors of Voi- ce Propensity”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications And Conflict, 13(1), pp.35-54.
  • MCKAY, Matthew; Martha DAVIS ve Patric FANNING; (2012), İletişim Be- cerileri, Çev.: Özgür GELBAL, Ankara: HYB Yayıncılık.
  • NEAR, Janet P. and Marcia P. MICELI; (1985), “Organizational Dissidence: The Case of whistle-Blowing”, Journal of Business Ethics, 4, pp.1-16.
  • NIKOLAOU, Ioannis; Maria VAKOLA and Dimitris BOURANTAS; (2008), “Who Speaks Up At Work? Dispositional Influences On Employees’ Voice Behavior”, Personnel Review, 37(6), pp.666-679.
  • PINDER, Craig C. and Karen P. HARLOS; (2001), “Employee Silence: Quies- cence and Acquiescence as Responses Perceived Injustice”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, pp.331-369.
  • POTTER, Paula W.; (2006), “Procedural Justice, Voice Effects and Sham: Examining The Decision Maker From a Research Context Perspective”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 10(2), pp.61-76.
  • PREMEAUX, Sonya Fontenot; (2001), “Breaking Silence: Toward an Unders- tanding of Speaking Up in the Workplace”, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  • PREMEAUX, Sonya Fontenot and Arthur G. BEDEIAN; (2003), “Breaking Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self-Monitoring in Predicting Spea- king Up in the Workplace”, Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), pp.1537-1562.
  • RECKERS-SAUCIUC, Ashley K. and D. Jordan LOWE; (2010), “The Influen- ce Of Dispositional Affect On Whistle-Blowing”, Advances in Acco- unting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, 26, pp.259-269.
  • SHAHINPOOR, Nasrin and Bernard F. MATT; (2007), “The Power of One: Dissent and Organizational Life”, Journal of Business Ethics, 74, pp.37-48.
  • TEO, Hayden and Donella CASPERSZ; (2011), “Dissenting Discourse: Explo- ring Alternatives to the Whistleblowing/Silence Dichotomy” Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), pp.237-249.
  • TÜRKEŞ, Günay Umay; (2009), Türk Kültürüne Eleştiri, Birinci Baskı, Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları.
  • URAL, Ayhan ve İbrahim KILIÇ; (2005), Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  • VAN DYNE, Linn; Soon ANG and Isabel C. BOTERO; (2003), “Conceptuali- zing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), pp.1359-1392.
  • VERHEZEN, Peter; (2010), “Giving Voice in a Culture of Silence. From a Cul- ture of Compliance to a Culture of Integrity”, Journal of Business Et- hics, 96, pp.187-206.
  • WALDRON, Vincent R. And James SANDERSON; (2011), “The Role of Sub- jective Threat in Upward Influence Situations”, Communication Quar- terly, 59(2), pp.239-254.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

İbrahim Durak This is me

Publication Date May 21, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2013 Issue: 41

Cite

APA Durak, İ. (2015). YÖNETİCİLERLE AÇIKÇA KONUŞABİLME DÜZEYİNİN GENEL KONUŞMA NEDENLERİNE ETKİSİ: ÜNİVERSİTELERDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(41), 111-136.

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.