Kamu Liderliğinin Kamu Hizmet Motivasyonuna Etkisinde Örgütsel Bürokrasinin Rolü: Diyarbakır İlinde Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Bu çalışma, kamu liderliğinin alt boyutlarının kamu hizmet motivasyonu (KHM) üzerindeki etkisini ve kurumsal bürokrasinin bu ilişkideki rolünü incelemektedir. Araştırma, Diyarbakır’daki kamu kurumlarında görev yapan 314 kamu çalışanından anket yoluyla toplanan verilerle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kullanılan anket, kamu liderliği, KHM ve kurumsal bürokrasiye ilişkin ölçekleri içermektedir. Verilerin analizinde keşfedici faktör analizi ve regresyon analizleri kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, hesap verebilir ve kural odaklı liderliğin KHM üzerinde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu tür liderlik anlayışları, çalışanların kamu hizmetine yönelik motivasyonlarını artırarak daha yüksek bir bağlılık ve sorumluluk duygusu geliştirmelerine katkıda bulunmaktadır. Öte yandan, politik sadakat liderliği KHM’yi olumsuz yönde etkilemekte ve çalışan motivasyonunu azaltmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, kurumsal bürokrasinin kamu liderliğinin alt boyutları ile KHM arasındaki ilişkiyi zayıflatmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum, çalışanların bürokratik süreçleri işin doğal bir parçası olarak kabul ettiklerini ve bu süreçlerin motivasyonlarını olumsuz yönde etkilemediğini düşündürmektedir. Sonuç olarak, kamu liderlerinin hesap verebilirlik ve kurallara dayalı yönetim anlayışını benimsemeleri, çalışanların motivasyonlarını artırmada önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Araştırma, Türkiye bağlamında kamu liderliği ve KHM arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanan sınırlı sayıdaki çalışmalara katkı sunarak literatüre önemli bir ekleme yapmaktadır. Bulgular, kamu yönetiminde etkili liderlik anlayışlarının benimsenmesi gerektiğine dair önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kamu liderliği
• kamu hizmet motivasyonu
• örgütsel bürokrasi

The Role of Organized Bureaucracy in The Impact of Public Leadership on Public Service Motivation: A Study in Diyarbakır

Abstract

This study examines the impact of sub-dimensions of public leadership on public service motivation (PSM) and the role of institutional bureaucracy in this relationship. The research was conducted using survey data collected from 314 public employees working in public institutions in Diyarbakır. The survey included scales measuring public leadership, PSM, and institutional bureaucracy. Exploratory factor analysis and regression analyses were employed to analyze the data. The findings reveal that accountability-oriented and rule-based leadership positively influence PSM. These leadership approaches enhance employees' motivation for public service, fostering a greater sense of commitment and responsibility. On the other hand, political loyalty leadership negatively affects PSM, reducing employee motivation. Furthermore, institutional bureaucracy was not found to weaken the relationship between public leadership sub-dimensions and PSM. This suggests that employees perceive bureaucratic processes as a natural part of their work and do not consider these processes detrimental to their motivation. In conclusion, the adoption of accountability and rule-based management approaches by public leaders plays a crucial role in enhancing employee motivation. By focusing on the relationship between public leadership and PSM in the Turkish context, this study contributes to the limited body of literature on the subject. The findings provide significant insights into the necessity of adopting effective leadership approaches in public administration.

Keywords

• Public leadership
• public service motivation
• Organized Bureaucracy

References

1. Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage Publishing.
2. Andersen, L. B., & Kjeldsen, A. M. (2013). Public service motivation, user orientation, and job satisfaction: A question of employment sector?. International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 252-274.
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
4. Bellé, N. (2014). Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 109-136.
5. Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government “red tape”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-304.
6. Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(3), 413-440.
7. Bright, L. (2007). Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service motivation and the job performance of public employees?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(4), 361-379.
8. Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 499-518.

9. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
10. Fernandez, S. (2005). Developing and testing an integrative framework of public sector leadership: Evidence from the public education arena. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 197-217.
11. Getha-Taylor, H., Holmes, M. H., Jacobson, W. S., Morse, R. S., & Sowa, J. E. (2011). Focusing the public leadership lens: Research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), i83-i97.
12. Hameduddin, T., & Engbers, T. (2022). Leadership and public service motivation: a systematic synthesis. International Public Management Journal, 25(1), 86-119.
13. Horton, S. (2008). History and persistence of an idea and an ideal. Motivation in public management: the call of public service. Ed. Perry, J. L. and Hondeghem A. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ss. 17-32.
14. Jacobsen, C. B., & Bøgh Andersen, L. (2015). Is leadership in the eye of the beholder? A study of intended and perceived leadership practices and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 829-841.
15. Jacobsen, C. B., & Jakobsen, M. L. (2018). Perceived organizational red tape and organizational performance in public services. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 24–36.
16. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Sentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52.
17. Meyer-Sahling, J. H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2019). The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 445-459.
18. Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.
19. Ospina, S. M. (2017). Collective leadership and context in public administration: Bridging public leadership research and leadership studies. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 275-287.
20. Pandey, S. K., & Kingsley, G. A. (2000). Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779-800.
21. Pandey, S. K., Coursey, D. H., & Moynihan, D. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 398-425.
22. Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.
23. Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 367-373.
24. Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. The American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288-302.
25. Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32.
26. Schwarz, G., Eva, N., & Newman, A. (2020). Can public leadership increase public service motivation and job performance?. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 543-554.
27. Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155-180.
28. Taylor, J. (2007). The impact of public service motives on work outcomes in Australia: a comparative multi‐dimensional analysis. Public Administration, 85(4), 931-959.
29. Tummers, L., & Knies, E. (2016). Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Administration, 94(2), 433-451.
30. Uluturk, B., Yilmaz Altuntas, E., & Isik, T. (2023). Impact of ethical leadership on job satisfaction and work-related burnout among turkish street-level bureaucrats: The roles of public service motivation, perceived organizational support, and red tape. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(6), 1502-1534.
31. Van der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465-482.
32. Van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 553-565.
33. Van Wart, M., & Dicke, L. (2016). Administrative leadership in the public sector. Routledge.
34. Vandenabeele, W. (2007). Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review, 9(4), 545-556.
35. Vandenabeele, W. (2009). The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on self-reported performance: more robust evidence of the PSM—performance relationship. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 11-34.
36. Wright, B. E., Hassan, S., & Park, J. (2016). Does a public service ethic encourage ethical behaviour? Public service motivation, ethical leadership and the willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration, 94(3), 647-663.