Akılcı ve sezgisel karar verme stillerinin daha fazla güç talebine etkisinde öz-yeterliliğinin düzenleyici rolü

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 6, 1349 - 1363, 17.12.2025

Şule Darıcan

https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1775256

Abstract

Karar verme biçimleri, çalışanların belirsizlikler ve karmaşık iş durumları karşısında sergiledikleri tutumları anlamada önemli bir göstergedir. Günümüzün rekabetçi, dinamik ve hızla değişen iş ortamında, çalışanların karar verme yaklaşımları yalnızca bireysel bir eğilim olmanın ötesine geçerek örgütsel performansın, uyum kapasitesinin ve stratejik etkinliğin belirleyici unsurlarından biri haline gelmiştir. Perakende sektörü müşteri beklentilerinin hızlı değiştiği, anlık tepki vermeyi gerektiren ve yoğun rekabetin yaşandığı bir sektör olması nedeniyle bu dinamiklerin en yoğun gözlemlendiği alanlardan biridir. Bu sektörde görev yapan çalışanların karar verme biçimleri, yalnızca operasyonel süreçleri değil, aynı zamanda örgüt içi etkileşimleri, liderlik davranışlarını, motivasyon düzeylerini, örgütsel bağlılıklarını ve güç arayışlarını da doğrudan etkilemektedir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, akılcı ve sezgisel karar verme stillerinin çalışanların daha fazla güç talebi üzerindeki etkilerini incelemeyi ve öz-yeterliliğin bu ilişkideki düzenleyici rolünü ortaya koymaktır. Bu nedenle çalışma, perakende sektöründe görev yapan çalışanlardan elde edilen veriler kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiş, analizler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi aracılığıyla yürütülmüştür. Bulgular, hem akılcı hem de sezgisel karar verme stillerinin daha fazla güç talebi üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif etkiler yarattığını, öz-yeterliliğin ise bu ilişkide düzenleyici bir rol üstlendiğini göstermiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, bireysel bilişsel eğilimlerin ve psikolojik kaynakların çalışan davranışlarını şekillendirmedeki önemine dikkat çekerek, perakende sektöründe insan kaynaklarının güçlendirilmesine yönelik teorik ve pratik katkılar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Akılcı karar verme , sezgisel karar verme , güç talebi , öz-yeterlilik , perakende sektörü.

Ethical Statement

İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Kurulu

Supporting Institution

yok

Thanks

Teşekkür ederim Saygılarımla

The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy in The Effect of Rational and Intuitive Decision-Making Styles on Power Demand

Abstract

Decision-making styles serve as a critical indicator for understanding employee attitudes in the face of uncertainty and challenging situations. In today’s competitive, dynamic, and rapidly evolving business environment, decision-making styles are no longer confined to individual tendencies but have become key determinants of organizational performance, adaptive capacity, and strategic effectiveness. The retail sector is among the industries where these dynamics are most clearly reflected, as customer expectations evolve rapidly, immediate action is often required, and competition remains intense. In this context, decision-making styles of employees not only influence operational processes but also directly affect their intra-organizational interactions, leadership behaviors, motivation levels, organizational commitment, and power demand. The aim of this research is to examine the effect of rational and intuitive decision-making styles on employees’ increased power demand and to explore the moderating role of self-efficacy within this relationship. In line with this, the research was conducted using data collected from employees working in the retail sector, and analyses were carried out through structural equation modeling. The findings reveal that both rational and intuitive decision-making styles have significant and positive effects on increased power demand, while self-efficacy plays a moderating role in this relationship. These results underscore the importance of individual cognitive tendencies and psychological resources in shaping employee behavior, offering both theoretical and practical contributions to the empowerment of human resources in the retail industry.

Keywords

power demand , Rational decision-making , intuitive decision-making , power demand , self-efficacy , retail sector

Ethical Statement

Sender: Istanbul Aydin University, Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee Recipient: Şule Darıcan Date: 09/20/2024 Subject: Decision of the Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee Meeting Number: 2024/09 Content Summary: The document states that the Istanbul Aydin University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee has unanimously approved the ethical compliance of the application of the Rational and Intuitive Decision Making Styles Scale, the More Power Demand Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale in the study titled "The moderating role of self-efficacy in the effect of rational and intuitive decision-making styles on more power demand," conducted by Dr. Şule Darıcan, a faculty member of Anadolu Bil Meslek Yüksekokulu (Vocational School) Marketing Program. Signer: Prof. Dr. Levent Ürer Head of the Ethics Committee

Thanks

Thank You

References

• Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. https://doi.org-/10.1002/ejsp.324
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman
• Bavolar, J., Kacmar, P., Lovas, L., & Durbisová, S. (2023). Decision-making styles and goal striving: A mini-meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 37(1), e2349. https://-doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2349
• Byrnes, J. P. (2002). The development of decision-making. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 208–215.
• Çavuş, M. F., & Akgemci, T. (2008). İşletmelerde personel güçlendirmenin örgütsel yaraticilik ve yenilikçiliğe etkisi: İmalat sanayiinde bir araştirma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (20), 229-244.
• Crivelli, D., Acconito, C. & Balconi, M. (2024). Emotional and cognitive “route” in decision-making process: The relationship between executive functions, psychophysiological correlates, decisional styles, and personality. Brain Sciences, 14(7), 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/-brainsci14070734
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916124-60685
• Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260.
• Ferreira-Neto, M. N., de Carvalho Castro, J. L., de Sousa-Filho, J. M., & de Souza Lessa, B. (2023). The role of self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and creativity in developing entrepreneurial intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1134618.
• Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259–286.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.
• Hamilton, K., Shih, S. I., & Mohammed, S. (2016). Revisiting decision style: A latent variable analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 410–422.
• Işıkgöz, M. E. (2025). The role of rational and intuitive decision making styles in predicting academic achievement of Turkish pre-service physical education. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 54(246), 1041-1074.
• Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977). A study of different approaches to job enrichment. Academy of Management Journal, 20(4), 552–565.
• İme, Y., Soyer, M. K., & Keskinoğlu, M. Ş. (2020). Akılcı ve sezgisel karar verme stilleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16(Eğitim ve Toplum Özel sayısı), 5995-6013
• Joe, G. W., Lehman, W. E., Pankow, J., Wiese, A., & Knight, K. (2023). Decision-making styles as a moderator on the efficacy of the staysafe tablet intervention. Substance Use & Misuse, 58(9), 1132-1142.
• Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
• Kaplan, A., & Özdemir, C. (2024). Rational and ıntuitive decision-making styles, critical thinking dispositions and associated factors of nurses. Africa Journal of Nursing & Midwifery, 26(2).
• Lange, M., Ottensmeyer, K., & Jonas, E. (2022). Decision-making autonomy and self-efficacy as predictors of employee performance in remote work contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 910545.
• Lim, T. S., Kamarulzaman, W., & Zainuddin, N. M. (2023). The influence of self-efficacy on job performance of employees in the online retail sector in Malaysia: The mediating effect of innovative behaviour. Journal of Retail and Consumer Services, 74, 102455.
• Litvaj, I., Ponisciakova, O., Stancekova, D., Svobodova, J., & Mrazik, J. (2022). Decision-making procedures and their relation to knowledge management and quality management. Sustainability, 14(1), 572.
• Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1(2), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00011.x
• Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
• Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482–497.
• Orçanlı, K. (2021). Daha fazla güç talebi ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(2), 1426-1437.
• Phillips, S. D., Pazienza, N. J., & Ferrin, H. H. (1984). Decision-making styles and problem-solving appraisal. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 497-502.
• Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 180–206. https://doi.org-/10.1016/ j.dr.2011.07.004
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 413–446. https://doi.org/10.1016-/j.jvb.2006.12.004
• Samancı, O., & Mazlumoğlu, M. (2023). Decision-making skill: How to make better decisions? TAY Journal, 7(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/-10.29329/tayjournal.2023.-543.14
• Sart G., Sezgin, F. H. & Demir, N. (2018). Mobbingin mesleki tükenmişlik algısı üzerine etkileri: Kadın akademisyenler örneği. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 6(1), 118-135. https://dergipark.-org.tr/tr/pub/beykozad/issue/52132/681503
• Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 207–231.
• Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831.
• Spector, P. E. (1985). Higher-order need strength as a moderator of the job scope–job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(2), 119–127.
• Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240
• Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.
• Varga, A., & Ee, M. (2024). The Role of Emotionality, Self-efficacy, Rational-and Intuitive-Thinking Styles in Advanced Chess Expertise. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Psychologia-Paedagogia, 69(1), 73-101.