Algılanan Etkileme Taktiklerinin İş Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisini Belirlemede Kontrol Odağının Düzenleyici Rolü: Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Uygulama

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, otel işletmelerinde çalışanların etkileme taktikleri algılarının iş performansı üzerindeki etkisinde kontrol odağının düzenleyici etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Nevşehir’de bulunan dört ve beş yıldızlı otel işletmeleri çalışanları araştırmanın örneklemini oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verileri anket tekniği ile elde edilmiş ve elde edilen veriler hiyerarşik regresyon analizi ile test edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda otel çalışanlarının etkileme taktikleri algıları ile iş performansları (görev ve bağlamsal) arasında bir ilişki olduğu ve bu ilişkide kontrol odağının düzenleyici rolü olduğu tespit edilmiştir.  Etkileme taktikleri algısı ile bağlamsal performans arasındaki ilişkide iç kontrol odağının dış kontrol odağına göre daha fazla etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ancak etkileme taktikleri ile görev performansı arasındaki ilişkide kontrol odağının boyutları açısından anlamlı bir etki görülmemiştir.

Keywords

• Etkileme Taktikleri,İş Performansı

Moderating Role of Locus of Control in Determining The Effect of Job Performance on Perceived Influence Tactics: An Application at Hotel Firms

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the moderator role of locus of control on the relationship between influence tactics and, task and contextual performance. The four-and-five-star hotel businesses in Nevşehir are investigating research. The data obtained by the survey results and the obtained data were tested by hierarchical regression analysis. As a result of the study, it was determined that there is a relationship between the perception of the hotel employees' effective tactics and their job performances (task and contextual) and that the locus of control has a moderator role in this relationship. In the relationship between the perception of impact tactics and contextual performance, the effect of the internal locus of control was found to be higher than the external locus of control. However, there was no significant effect on the size of the locus of control in the relationship between effective tactics and task performance.

Keywords

• Influence Tactics,Job Performance

References

1. Ağaoğlu K (1992) İşgücünü Verimli Kullanma Tekniklerinin Turizm Sektöründe Uygulaması, Ankara, MPM yayınları.
2. Argon T ve Eren A (2004) İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi ( Nobel Yayınevi, Ankara).
3. Babin B J, Boles J S (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service prowider role stress, performance, and job satisfaction, Journal of Retailing, 72 (1), 57-75.
4. Baron R M ve Kenny D A (1986) “The moderator– mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, ss: 1173–1182.Barrick M R, Mount M K (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
5. Borman W C, Motowidlo S J (1997) Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
6. Borman, W. C. (1993). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness (Edt)Dunnette Marvin D, Hough, Leaetta M, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, US, ss. 271-326).
7. Burns A C, Bush R F (2014) Marketing Research, 7th Edition, (Pearson Education, Harlow).
8. Büyüköztürk Ş (2002) Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 8 (32), 470-483.

9. Campbell J P (1990) Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2. basım.,Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, 1, 687-732).
10. Castro, S. L., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Frink, D. D. (2003). The effects-of positive affect and gender on the influence tactics-job performance relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1), 1-18.
11. Çetin, F, Basım N J (2013) Örgütte bireysel farklılıklar, kişilik ve değerler, İçinde: Örgütsel Davranış (Ed: Ünsal Sığrı ve Sait Gürbüz), (Beta Basım Yayın, İstanbul., 432-478).
12. Gürbüz S, Şahin F (2014) Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri (Felsefe-Yöntem-Analiz), (Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara).
13. Kipnis D, Schmidt S M, Wilkinson I (1980) Intra- organizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
14. König C J, Debus M E, Häusler S, Lendenmann N, Kleinmann M (2010) Examining occupational self-efficacy, work locus of control and communication as moderators of the job insecurity-job performance relationship, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2), 231-247.
15. Kuşluvan S, Demirer H (2001) Konaklama işletmelerinde yöneticilerin astlarını etkileme taktikleri ve bu taktiklerin etkinliği üzerine bir araştırma, 9. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Bildiriler, 24-26 Mayıs, 2001, 265-278.
16. Koşar, D (2016) Liderlerin etkileme taktikleri, İçinde: Eğitim yönetiminde liderlik (teori, araştırma ve uygulama), Ed: Nezahat Güçlü, Serkan Koşar, Pegem Yayınları: Ankara.
17. Motowidlo S J (2000) Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management.Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 115-126.
18. Motowidlo S J, Van Scotter J R (1994) Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
19. Motowidlo S J, Borman W C, Schmit M J (1997) A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance‖, 10, 71–83.
20. Motowidlo S J, Borman W C, Schmit M J (1999) Performance assessment in unique jobs, içinde (Edt: D R Ilgen, E D Pulakos), The changing nature of job performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 56–86).
21. Ng T W, Sorensen K L, Eby L T (2006) Locus of control at work: a meta‐analysis. Journal of organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087.
22. Oyewole G O, Popoola S O (2015) Personal factors and work locus of control as determinants of job performance of library personnel in federal colleges of education in nigeria. Chinese Librarianship, (40), 15-31.
23. Raven B H (2008) The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22.Rhoades L, Eisenberger R (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), s.698.
24. Rotundo M, Sackett P R (2002) The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 66-80.
25. Sonnentag S, Frese M (2002) Performance Concepts and Performance Theory. (Edt: Sabine Sonnentag) , Psychological Management of Individual Performance, (John Wiley & Sons, USA, s.4-19).
26. Sonnentag S, Volmer J, Spychala A (2010). Job Performance (Konstanzer (Online) Publications System (KOPS), 427-447).
27. Spector, P. E. ( 1988). Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335– 340.
28. Van Scotter J R, Motowidlo S J (1996) Interpersonal Facilitation and Job Dedication As Separate Facets of Contextual Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 5, 525-531.
29. Wang H, Law K S, Chen Z X (2008) Leader-member exchange, employee performance, and work outcomes: An empirical study in the Chinese context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,, 19(10), 1809-1824.
30. Wayne S J, Ferris G R (1990) Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487-499.
31. Wayne S J, Kacmar, K M (1991) The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 48(1), 70-88.
32. Yukl G (2008) How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708–722.
33. Yukl G, Tracey J B (1992) Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 525–535.
34. Yukl G, Chavez C, Seifert C F (2005) Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 705–725.
35. Yukl G, Seifert C, Chavez C (2008) Validation of the extended Influence Behavior Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 609–621.
36. http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/ wlcspage.html (10.01.2016)