LİDER-ÜYE ETKİLEŞİMİNİN YENİ BİR SONUCU: İZLENİM YÖNETİMİ TAKTİKLERİ

Year 2021, Volume: 16 Issue: 56, 740 - 768, 31.07.2021

Işık Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.805098

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Grup üyeleri, lider tarafından oluşturulan iç grup – dış grup kategorileştirmesinin farkında olduklarında, çalışanların motivasyonu, işlerine ya da örgüte yönelik tutumları ve performansları iç grup ya da dış grup üyesi olma durumlarından etkilenmektedir (lider-üye etkileşimi). Bu kategorileştirmenin farkındalığının bir sonucu da çalışan tarafından ortaya konan izlenim yönetimi davranışıdır. İzlenim yönetimi, bireylerin bir kişi, nesne ya da olay ile ilgili diğer kişilerin algılarını etkilemeye yönelik çabalarını içeren amaca yönelik bir süreçtir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, çalışan için iç grup ya da dış grup üyesi olması ile ilgili farkındalığının izlenim yönetimi davranışı göstermesindeki etkisini incelemektir. Araştırma, yatay kesit türünde gerçekleştirilmiştir. 13 farklı örgütten 427 çalışan örnekleme seçilmiştir. Ölçeklerin güvenilirliği, içsel tutarlılık güvenilirliği, geçerliliği ise yapısal geçerlilik (faktör analizi) ile teşhis edilmiştir. Önerilen ilişkiler yapısal eşitlik modeli ile test edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre, bir izlenim yönetimi davranışı olan “kendini sevdirerek niteliklerini tanıtma” liderüye etkileşiminden etkilenmektedir. Lider-üye etkileşimin “katkı” boyutu beklendiği şekilde izlenim yönetimi davranışının ortaya çıkışını negatif yönde etkilemektedir. Beklentilerin aksine, lider üye etkileşiminin “duygu ve profesyonel duruş” boyutu izlenim yönetimi davranışının ortaya çıkışını olumlu yönde etkilemektedir.

Keywords

Lider-Üye Etkileşimi, İzlenim Yönetimi taktikleri, Tutum, Örgüt

A NEW CONSEQUENCE OF LEADER-MEMBER-EXCHANGE: IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTICS

Abstract

When members of the in-group and out-group formed by the leader are aware of this categorization, employees’ motivation, attitudes towards job or organization, and performance can be affected by being a member in-group or out-group (leader-member exchange, LMX). One of the consequences of this categorization awareness is impression management tactics displayed by an employee. Impression management is a goaldirected process in which individuals try to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event. The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of awareness of being a member in-group or outgroup for the employee on impression management tactic. A cross-sectional survey is utilized in this research. 427 employees are selected from 13 different organizations. The reliability of the scales is diagnosed via an internal reliability coefficient. The validity of the scales is diagnosed via construct validity (factor analysis). The proposed relationships are tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). According to research findings, ingratiation by self-promotion, one dimension of impression management, is affected by leader-memberexchange. Contribution dimension of LMX influences utilizing of impression management tactic negatively, as expected. Contrary to expectations, LMX in terms of affect and professional respect influences arising of impression management tactic positively.

Keywords

Leader-Member-Exchange; Impression Management tactics, Attitude, Organization

References

• Agina, M., Mohammad, M. A., & Omer, A. (2017). Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Impression Management in Employee Performance at Hotels. Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels-University of Sadat City, 1(2/1), 217-234.
• Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.). Impression management theory and social psychological research. (pp.311-315). New York: Academic Press.
• Arkin, R. M. and J. A. Sheppard (1990). Strategic self-presentation: An overview. Cody, M. J. M. and Bristol M. L. (Eds), The psychology of tactical communication (pp.174-193), Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Avşar, F. (2007). Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Application om Beck’s Depression Inventory. (Unpublished master dissertation). Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. American Psychologist, 41, 1389-1391.
• Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology & Health, 13(4), 623-649. doi: 10.1080/08870449808407422
• Basım, N., Tatar, İ., & Şahin, N. H (2006). İzlenim Yönetiminde Kendilik Algısı, Kontrol Odağı, Mesleki Hedeflere Ulaşma Düzeyi ve Stres: Bir Kamu Sektörü Örneği (Self-Concept, Locus of Control, Level of Attaining Occupational Objective and Stress in Impression Management). Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 21(58), 1-14.
• Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: a longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-156.
• Baumeister, R. F. (1987). Self-Presentation Theory: Self-Construction and Audience Pleasing. B. Mullen and G. Goethals (Eds). Theories of Group Behavior (pp 71-87). Switzerland: Springer Series in Social Psychology.
• Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187-206.
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 276-286.
• Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080-1109.
• Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9-30.
• Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-539.
• Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1992). Centrality and power in organizations. Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp.191-215). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Burney, L. L., Henle, C. A., & Widener, S. K. (2009). A path model examining the relations among strategic performance measurement system characteristics, organizational justice, and extra- and in-role performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3-4), 305-321.
• Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Byrne, M. (2001). Grounded Theory as a qualitative research methodology. AORN Journal, 73(6), 1155-1156. doi: 10.1016/s0001-2092(06)61841-3.
• Çetin. F., & Basım, N. (2010). İzlenim Yönetimi Taktiklerinde Öz Yeterlilik Algısının Rol (The role of self-efficacy on impression management tactics). Erciyes Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 255-269.
• Chen, Z., Huo, Y., Lam, W., Luk, R.C., & Qureshi, I. (2021). How perceptions of others’ work and impression management motives affect leader–member exchange development: A six-wave latent change score model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of British Psychological Society. doi: 10.1111/joop.12341
• Cheng, J., Chiu, W., & Tzeng, G. (2013). Do impression management tactics and/or supervisor-subordinate guanxi matter. Knowledge-Based System, 40, 123-133.
• Christopher, A. N., Lasane, T. P, Troisi, J, D., & Park, L. E. (2007). Materialism, Defensive and Assertive Self-Presentational Tactics, and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(10), 1145-1162.
• Çiçek, I. (2018). Özdeşleme ve kişi-örgüt uyumunun sağlanmasında kurum kültürü ve organizasyonel yapı etkisi. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul.
• Coto, L. L. (2017) Why Leader-member exchange is important to business thinking. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Washington.
• Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
• Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within Formal Organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
• Demirtaş, Ö., & Biçkes, M. (2014). Makyavelizm’in olumsuz durumları ifşa etme niyeti üzerindeki etkisi: Bir alan çalışması (The effects of machiavellianism on whistleblowing: A field study). ISGUC.ORG, 16(2), 98-112.
• Diekmann, C., Blickle, G., Hafner, K., & Peters, L. (2015). Trick or trait? The combined effects of employee impression management modesty and trait modesty on supervisor evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 120-129.
• Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique and further development, Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
• Doğan, N., & Başokçu, T. O. (2010). İstatistik Tutum Ölçeği İçin Uygulanan Faktör Analizi ve Aşamalı Kümeleme Analizi Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 1(2), 65-71.
• Doğan, S., & Kılıç, S. (2009). Örgütlerde izlenim yönetimi davranışı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(3), 53-83.
• Erdem, F. S. (2008). Organizasyonlarda lider-üye etkileşiminin örgüte vatandaşlık davranışı üzerindeki etkisinde izlenim yönetimi davranışının rolü: Kayseri’de hizmet sektöründe bir araştırma. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Erciyes Üniversitesi, Kayseri.
• Erkılıç, E., Gazeloğlu, C., & Aytekin, E. (2018). Investigation of Organizational Dissent Behavior via Structural Equation Modelling: A Research on Hospitality Business Employees. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 4(25), 5356-5366.
• Ertürk, Z. (2006) Ölçeklerin Faktör Yapısını Belirlemede Kullanılan Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Kümeleme Analizi ile Verilerin sınıflandırılmasında Kullanılan Discriminant ve Lojistik Regresyon Analizi Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi Üniversity, Ankara.
• Feldman, Daniel C. and Klich, N. R. (1991). Impression Management and Career Strategies. Giacalone, R. A. and Rosenfeld, P. (Eds), Applied Impression Management, (pp.67-79). London: Sage Pub.
• Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural bases of interpersonal influences in groups: A longitudinal case study. American Sociological Review, 58, 861-872.
• Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (2001). Instrument Development in The Affective Domain: Measuring Attitudes and Values in Corporate and Scholl Settings. (Second Edition). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Genç, M. (2010) The influence of organizational culture, leader-member-exchange and employee’s attitudes toward change on information systems implementations in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Yeditepe University, İstanbul.
• Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
• Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
• Glenda M. F., & Jared P. F. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1-12.
• Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a theory of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
• Grafton, J., Lillis, A. M., & Widener, S. K. (2010). The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 689-706.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517-534.
• Hooper, D., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions, The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 20-30.
• Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 151-168.
• Hündür, Ü. (2019). Örgüt ikliminin örgütsel özdeşleşmeye etkisinde lider-üye etkileşiminin aracılık rolü üzerinde bir araştırma. (Unpublished master’s thesis). İstanbul University, İstanbul.
• Hwa, A., Jantani, M., & Ansari, M. (2009). Supervisor vs subordinate perception on leader-member exchange quality: A Malaysian perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(7), 165-171.
• Jawahar, I. M., Schreurs, B., & Mohammed, S. (2018). How and when LMX quality relates to counterproductive performance: A mediated moderation model. Career Development International, 23(6/7), 557-575.
• Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Towards a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation. Suls, J. (Ed.). Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Vol 1. (pp.231-262). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Jones, E.E. (1990). Interpersonal perception, NewYork: W.H. Freeman and Company
• Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.
• Kacmar, M., Harris, K. and Nagy, B. (2007). Further validation of Bolino and Turnley Impression Management Scale. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9, 16-32.
• Karadeniz, M. & Kocamaz, İ. (2018). Facebook, Youtube ve Instagram reklamlarının tüketicilerin markaya yönelik tutumlarına etkisi (The effects of Facebook, Youtube and Instagram advertisements on customers’ brand attitudes). Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(3), 95-107.
• Keith, Y. N., & Hase, S. (2008). Grounded suggestions for doing a grounded theory business research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(2), 155-170.
• Khatri, N. (2011). A taxonomy of supervisor-subordinate exchanges across cultures. IIMB Management Review, 23, 71-80.
• Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87-108.
• King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 112-133.
• Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 50-55.
• Leary, M. R. (1996). Self-presentation, impression management and interpersonal behavior. Colorado: Oxford Westview Press.
• Leary, M. R., & R. M. Kowalski (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press.
• Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development, Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
• Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T. & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Ferris, G. R. & Rowland, K. M. (Eds.). Research in personnel and human resources management, 15 (pp.47-199). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993) A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662-674.
• Maher, L.P., Gallagher, V.C., Rossi, A. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2018). Political skill and will as predictors of impression management frequency and style: A three-study investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 276-294.
• Marsden, P., & Friedkin, N. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research, 22(1), 127-151.
• Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Geoff, T., & Topakas, A. (2010). A Review of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) research: Future prospects and directions. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (Eds.). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25 (pp 35-88). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2005) LMX differentiation: key concepts and related empirical findings. Graen, G. & Graen, J. A. (Eds.), Global organizing designs, LMX leadership: The series, Vol. 3 (pp.73-98). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545-559.
• Morçin, S., & Çarıkçı, İ. (2016). Dönüştürücü/etkileşimci liderliğin iş tatminine etkisinde örgütsel özdeşleşmenin aracılık rolü: Antalya’daki beş yıldızlı otel işletmeleri örneği (The mediation role of organizational identification in the effect of transformational/transactional leadership upon job satisfaction: The case of five star hotel businesses in Antalya). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 97-112.
• Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256-266.
• Oğuzhan, T., & Sığrı, Ü. (2014). Eğitim örgütlerinde izlenim yönetimi taktiklerinin kullanımına etik iklim tipinin etkisinde lider-üye etkileşiminin aracılık rolü (The effects of ethical climate on impression management tactics in educational organizations: The mediating role of leader member exchange). Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(1), 355-379.
• Okursay, A., & Turan, H. (2014). Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi ile Üniversite Yemekhanesinde Müşteri Memnuniyeti Üzerinde Etkili Olan Boyutların Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Uygulama (An Empirical Examination to Define Factors Effecting Customer Satisfaction Perceptions at University Cafteria). Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 15(1), 65-78.
• Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (Statistical Analysis with SPSS) (4th Edit). Eskişehir: Kaan Publishing.
• Piwinger, M., & Ebert, H. (2001). Impression management: Wie aus Niemand Jemand wird. Bentele,G., Piwinger, M., & Schönborn, G. Bentele (Eds.), Kommunikationsmanagement: Strategien, Wissen, Lösungen. 1 (pp.1-2). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff. N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
• Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306
• Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordon, C. (1995). Impression management in organizations. London: Routhledge.
• Roth, D. L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An individual differences measure of attributive and repudiative tactics of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 159-170.
• Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: an organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25-34.
• Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary concepts in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole.
• Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L. & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-82.
• Schutz, A. (1998). Audience Perceptions of Politicians’ Self-Presentational BehaviorsConcerning Their Own Abilities. The Journal of social psychology, 138(2), 173-188.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik (Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurment). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505-535.
• Sparrowe, R. T., & Popielarz, P. A. (1995). Getting ahead in the hospitality industry: An event history analysis of promotions among hotel and restaurant employees. Hospitality Research Journal, 19(4), 99-118.
• Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A.L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606.
• Tatar, İ. (2006). Impression management, self perception and stress: Study in land forces command. Institute of Defense, Istanbul.
• Tedeschi. J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation and the self. Schlenker, B. R. (Ed.). The self and social life (pp.293-322). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
• Thomas, G., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., & Guillaume, Y. (2013). Social cognition in leader-follower relationships: Applying insights from relationship science to understanding relationship-based approaches to leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 63-81.
• Türköz T. (2010). Çalışanların öz liderlik algısının izlenim yönetimi taktiklerini kullanımlarına olan etkileri: Savunma sanayinde uygulamalı bir araştırma (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Turkish Military Academy, İstanbul.
• Türkyılmaz, M. (2012). Bilgi iletişim teknolojilerinin okumaya yönelik tutuma etkisi (The affect of information communication technologies towards reading attitudes). Bilgi Dünyası, 13(2), 477-493.
• Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 217-227.
• Wayne, S., & Green, S. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12), 1531-1440.
• Weng, L. C., & Chang, W.C. (2015). Does impression management really help? A Multilevel testing of the mediation role of impression management between personality traits and leader-member exchange. Asian Pacific Review, 20(1), 2-10.
• Wulani, F., & Lindawati, T. (2018). The coworker’s impression management, LMX, and interpersonal deviance: The moderating effect of A fellow employee’s LMX. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 22(1), 1-14.
• Yang, C. F. (1998). Psychocultural foundations of informal groups: The issues of loyalty, sincerity, and trust. Dittmer L., Fukui H., & Lee, P. (Eds.). Informal Politics in East Asia (pp.85-105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Yıldırım, İ (2015). Okul Yöneticilerinin Kişilik ve Denetim Odağı Özelliklerinin Öğretmenlerin İş Doyumu ve Okul Etkililiği Açısından İncelenmesi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Atatürk University, Erzurum.
• Yılmaz, V., & Varol, S. (2015). Hazır yazılımlar ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: AMOS, EQS, Lisrel, (Structural equational modeling with software AMOS, EQS, Lisrell). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 44, 28-44.
• Zhao, H., Peng, Z., & Han, Y. (2012). Defining the perceptive aspects of leader-member exchange: A grounded investigation in the People’s Republic of China. African Journal of Business Management, 6(17), 5799-5806.