Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin Öz Liderliğe Etkisinde Proaktif Kişiliğin Aracı Rolü: Havacılık Sektörüne Yönelik Bir Araştırma

Abstract

The Mediator Role of Proactive Personality in the Effect of Psychological Empowerment on Self-Leadership: A Study for the Aviation Industry

Abstract

In recent years, psychological empowerment has been a tool to solve management problems arising from the need for creativity, innovation, and flexibility. In an environment where competition is intense, meeting the needs and expectations of conscious customers is only possible with a working style that can benefit from the initiative of the personnel. The concept of self-leadership consists of the theory of self-control and includes the concepts of self-influence and self-leadership. This study examines the mediating role of proactive personality in the effect of psychological empowerment on self-leadership. In this direction, a questionnaire was applied to 406 people in the province of Istanbul, including the cabin cockpit, ground services, operations, and general directorate in the civil aviation industry. The study used a structural equation model for the analysis. As a result, it concludes that personality has a partial mediating role in the effect of psychological empowerment on self-leadership. It suggests a need for personnel who can take the initiative, manage themselves, and adapt quickly to change, especially in the aviation sector, where safety and security are the most critical factors. Accordingly, there is a need for appropriate industry professionals in recruitment, selection and placement, training and development, and talent and career management. This need will continue to grow in the future.

Keywords

• Psychological Empowerment
• Self-Leadership
• Proactive Personality
• Civil Aviation
• Human Resources Management

References

1. Adam, G. And Ashford, S. (2008). The Dynamics of Proactivity At Work, Research in Organizational Behavior, volume 28, pp. 3–34.
2. Akgunduz, Y., Alkan, C., & Gök, Ö. A. (2018). Perceived organizational support, employee creativity and proactive personality: The mediating effect of meaning of work. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, volüme 34, pp. 105-114.
3. Ataman, G. (2009). İşletme Yönetimi Temel Kavramlar ve Yeni Yaklaşımlar, İstanbul, Türkmen Kitabevi.
4. Akçakaya, M. (2010). Örgütlerde uygulanan personel güçlendirme yöntemleri: Türk kamu yönetiminde personel güçlendirme. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, (25), 145-174.
5. Bolıno, M., Valcea, S. And Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, Manage Thyself: The Potentially Negative Implications Of Expecting Employees To Behave Proactively, Business Faculty Publications, Volume 6, Number 1, Pp. 3
6. Black, J.S. And Ashford, S.J. (1995). Fitting İn Or Making Jobs Fit: Factors Affecting Mode Of Adjustment For New Hires, Human Relations, number 48, pp. 421–437.
7. Chang, L.C. and Liı, C.H. (2008). Employee Empowerment, Innovative Behaviour and Job Productivity of Public Health Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Survey, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1442-1448.
8. Crant, J. M. (2000).Proactive Behavior In Organizations, Journal of Management, 26, pp. 435-462.

9. Durnali, M. (2020). The effect of self-directed learning on the relationship between self-leadership and online learning among university students in Turkey. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 8(1), 129-165.
10. Doğan, S., & Demiral, Ö. (2009). Örgütsel Bağliliğin Sağlanmasinda Personel Güçlendirme ve Psikolojik Sözleşmenin Etkisine Ilişkin Bir Araştirma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (32), 47-80.
11. Erdem, H., Gökmen, Y. Ve Türen, U. (2016). Psikolojik Güçlendirme Boyutlarının İş Performansı Üzerine Etkisinde Örgütsel Bağlılığın Aracılık Rolü: Görgül Bir Araştırma, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, cilt 17, sayı 2, ss. 161-176.
12. Ergeneli, A., Arı, G.S. Ve Metin, S. (2007). Psychological Empowerment ve Its Relationship to Trust in Immediate Managers, Journal of Business Research, number 60, pp. 41-49.
13. Hıll, F. And Huq, R. (2004). Employee Empowerment: Conceptualizations, Aims and Outcomes, Total Quality Management, volume 15, number 8, pp. 1025-1041.
14. Güney, S (2020). Temel ve Genel İşletme, İstanbul, Nobel Yayınevi.
15. Groeneveld, R.A. And Meeden, G. (1984) Measuring Skewness and Kurtosis. The Statistician, volüme 33, pp. 391-399.
16. Manz, C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1986). Leading Self-Managed Groups: A Conceptual Analysis Of A Paradox, Economic And İndustrial Democracy, volume 7, pp. 141-165.
17. Meyer, G. D., Neck, H. M., & Meeks, M. D. (2017). The entrepreneurship‐strategic management interface. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset, 17-44.
18. Morrıson, E. W. And Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking Charge At Work: Extrarole Efforts To İnitiate Workplace Change, Academy of Management Journal, volume 42, pp. 403-419.
19. Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self‐leadership: The impact of mental strategies training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of organizational behavior, 17(5), 445-467.
20. Prussıa, G.E., Veerson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. (1998). Self-leadership and Performance Outcomes: The Mediating Influence of Self-efficacy, Journal of Organizational Behavior, volume 19, number 5, pp. 523-538.
21. Parker, S. K., Bındl, U. K. And Strauss, K. (2010). Making Things Happen: A Model Of Proactive Motivation, Journal of Management, volume 36, pp. 827-856.
22. Polat, M. Ve Arabacı, İ. B. (2015), Liderliğin Kısa Tarihi ve Açık Liderlik, Route Educational ve Social Science Journal, cilt 2, sayı 1, ss. 207-232.
23. Torun, Y. (2016). Personel Güçlendirme ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti İlişkisinde Örgütsel Sinizmin Aracılık Rolü: Örgütsel Sinizm Ölçeği Geliştirmeye Yönelik Bir Araştırma, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
24. Kırmaz, B. (2010). Bilgi çağı lideri. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, cilt 3, ss. 207-222.
25. Uzun, G. (2005). Kadın ve erkek yöneticilerin liderlik davranışları arasındaki farklılıklar ve bankacılık sektöründe uygulama (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
26. Öztırak, M. (2017). Kurumsal Eğitim Veren Eğitmenlerde Girişimci Kişilik ile İşkoliklik İlişkisi, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
27. Sığrı, Ü. Ve Gürbüz, S. (2011). Akademik Başarı ve Kişilik İlişkisi: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, cilt 10, sayı 1, 30-48.
28. Üner, S. Ve Turan, S. (2010). The Construct Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Spreitzer’s Psychological Empowerment Scale, BMC Public Health, number 117, pp. 1-8.
29. Türkoz, T (2010). Çalışanların Öz Liderlik Algısının İzlenim Yönetimi Taktiklerini Kullanımlarına Olan Etkileri: Savunma Sanayinde Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), KHO Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
30. Şahbazoğlu, Meltem (2014), The Relationship between Proactive Personality, Empowerment and Proactive Work Behavior, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Yeditepe Üniversitesi SBE.