ÖRGÜTSEL İNSANDIŞILAŞTIRMA VE İŞTEN AYRILMA NİYETİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE, İŞE ANGAJE OLMA VE İŞ TATMİNİNİN ARACI ROLÜ

Year 2022, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 1 - 18, 22.03.2022

Elif Bilginoğlu Ugur Yozgat

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.898416

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Örgütsel insandışılaştırma; bir çalışanın örgütü tarafından nesneleştirildiğini, kişisel öznelliğinin reddedildiğini ve sanki örgütün amaçlarına yönelik bir araç ya da aletmiş gibi hissettirildiğine dair hissi deneyimidir. İnsandışılaştırma tutum ve davranışlarına örgütsel ortamlarda sıklıkla rastlanmaktadır ve bu konunun detaylı bir şekilde araştırılması önem taşımaktadır. Sosyal psikoloji alanında mevcut olan çok sayıda insandışılaştırma araştırmasının aksine, örgütsel ortamlardaki insandışılaştırmaya yönelik ilgi oldukça yenidir. Bu alanda, görgül araştırmalar halen yetersizdir ve bu olgunun öncülleri ve sonuçlarının araştırılması için daha fazla çaba harcanmalıdır. Bu araştırma örgütsel insandışılaştırma üzerine teorik bir çerçeve sunuyor olması yanı sıra, örgütsel insandışılaştırmanın işe angaje olma, iş tatmini ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen bir çalışmayı da içermektedir. Bu amaçla İstanbul’da çalışan 520 kişi üzerinde anket uygulanmıştır. Bu araştırmanın sonuçları örgütsel insandışılaştırmanın çalışanların işe angaje olmaları ve iş tatminleri üzerinde olumsuz, işten ayrılma niyetleri üzerinde ise olumlu etkisi olduğunu, bununla birlikte örgütsel insandışılaştırma ve çalışanların işten ayrılma niyetleri üzerindeki ilişkide çalışanların işe angaje olmaları ve iş tatminlerinin aracı role sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Örgütsel insandışılaştırma, İşe angaje olma, İş tatmini, İşten ayrılma niyeti

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

yok

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF WORK ENGAGEMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL DEHUMANIZATION AND INTENTION TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION

Abstract

Organizational dehumanization refers to “the experience of an employee who feels objectified by his or her organization, denied personal subjectivity, and made to feel like a tool or instrument for the organization’s ends” (Bell & Khoury, 2011: 168). Dehumanizing attitudes and behaviors frequently occur in organizational settings, and it is of critical importance to investigate this issue in detail. In contrast to a large amount of research on dehumanization that can be found in the domain of social psychology, interest in the construct of dehumanization in organizational settings is rather recent. In this domain, empirical research is still scarce, and more efforts should be devoted to exploring both the antecedents and consequences of this phenomenon. In addition to providing a theoretical framework on organizational dehumanization, this study includes a study that the impact of organizational dehumanization on work engagement, job satisfaction, and intention to leave. A survey was conducted on 520 people who work in Istanbul. The results of this paper reveal that organizational dehumanization has a negative effect on employee engagement and job satisfaction, whereas it has a positive effect on intention to leave. The results also reveal that work engagement and job satisfaction have mediating effects on the relationship between organizational dehumanization and intention to leave.

Keywords

Organizational dehumanization, Work engagement, Job satisfaction, Intention to leave

Project Number

yok

References

• Acker, G.M. (2004). “The Effect of Organizational Conditions (Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Opportunities for Professional Development, and Social Support) on Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave Among Social Workers in Mental Health Care”, Community Mental Health Journal, 40(1): 65-73.
• Arnoux-Nicolas, C., Sovet, L., Lhotellier, L., Di Fabio, A. ve Bernaud, J. (2016). “Perceived Work Conditions and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Meaning of Work”, Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 704.
• 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(6): 1173-1182.
• Bastian, B. ve Haslam, N. (2011). “Experiencing Dehumanization: Cognitive and Emotional Effects of Everyday Dehumanization”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33: 295–303.
• Bell, C.M. ve Khoury, C. (2011). “Organizational De/humanization, Deindividuation, Anomie, and In/justice”. S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner ve D. P. Skarlicki (Ed.) Research in Social Issues in Management. Emerging Perspectives on Organizational Justice and Ethics içinde (167-197). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.
• Bell, C.M. ve Khoury, C. (2016). “Organizational Powerlessness, Dehumanization, and Gendered Effects of Procedural Justice”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2): 570-585.
• Bilginoğlu E. ve Yozgat, U. (2019). “Ultra-Kısa İşe Angaje Olma Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması”, BMIJ, 7(5): 2863-2872 Blau, G. (1989). “Testing the Generalizability of a Career Commitment Measure and Its Impact on Employee Turnover”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 35: 88-103.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S. ve De Wilde, M. (2017). “Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Well-being: The Mediating Role of Organizational Dehumanization”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4): 527-540.
• Caesens, G., Nguyen, N. ve Stinglhamber, F. (2019). “Abusive Supervision and Organizational Dehumanization”, Journal of Business and Psychology, 34: 709–728.
• Christoff, K. (2014). “Dehumanization in Organizational Settings: Some Scientific and Ethical Considerations”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8: 1–5. Dawis R. V. ve Lofquist L. H. (1984). “A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment”. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• De Simone, S., Planta, A. ve Cicotto, G. (2018). “The Role of Job Satisfaction, Work Engagement, Self-Efficacy and Agentic Capacities on Nurses’ Turnover Intention and Patient Satisfaction”, Applied Nursing Research, 39: 130–140.
• Dubinsky, A.J. ve Harley, S.W. (1986). “A Path-analytic Study of a Model of Salesperson Performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14: 36-46.
• Formanowicz, M., Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T., Pietraszkiewicz, A., Walker, M. ve Gross, J.J. (2018). “Understanding Dehumanization: The Role of Agency and Communion”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77: 102–116.
• Garg, K., Dar, I.A. ve Mishra, M. (2018). “Job Satisfaction and Work Engagement: A Study Using Private Sector Bank Managers”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(1): 58-71.
• Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T.J. ve Masters, M.F. (2009). “The Negative Aspects of Social Exchange: An Introduction to Perceived Organizational Obstruction”, Group & Organization Management, 34: 665–697.
• Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. ve Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014). “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research”, European Business Review, 26(2): 106–121.
• Hair, J.F., William, B.C., Barry, B.J. ve Rolph A.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th Ed., NY: Prentice Hall.
• Halbesleben, J.R.B. ve Wheeler, A.R. (2008). “The Relative Roles of Engagement and Embeddedness in Predicting Job Performance and Intention to Leave”, Work & Stress, 22: 242-256.
• Hamby, S. (2018, June 21). “What Is Dehumanization, Anyway?” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-web-violence/201806/what-is-dehumanization-anyway [28.07.2019].
• Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. ve Hayes, T.L. (2002). “Business-Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.
• Haslam, N. (2006). “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10: 252–264.
• Haslam, N. ve Stratemeyer, M. (2016). “Recent Research on Dehumanization”, Current Opinion in Psychology, 11: 25–29.
• Hlupic, V. (2020). “The Eight Pillars for Creating Humanized High Performing Organizations”, Leader to Leader, 96: 39-45.
• Howard, A. (2015). “Humanise: Why Human-Centred Leadership Is the Key to the 21st Century”. Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
• Jack, A.I., Dawson, A.J. ve Norr, M.E. (2013). “Seeing Human: Distinct and Overlapping Neural Signatures Associated with Two Forms of Dehumanization”, Neuroimage, 79: 313-328.
• Jeanson, S. ve Michinov, E. (2018). “What is the Key to Researchers’ Job Satisfaction? One Response is Professional Identification Mediated by Work Engagement”, Current Psychology, 1-10.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). “SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Uygulamaları”. Ankara: Asil Yayınevi.
• Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H. M. ve Griffiths, M. D. (2015). “Organizational Identification, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 1019-1033.
• Kassing, J.W., Piemonte, N.M., Goman, C.C. ve Mitchell, C.A. (2012). “Dissent Expression as an Indicator of Work Engagement and Intention to Leave”, Journal of Business Communication, 49(3): 237–253.
• Keenahan, D. (1990). “Dehumanization: Understanding the Paradox of Human Interaction”. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Department of Psychology. University of Wollongong.
• Kim, W., Han, S.J. ve Park, J. (2019). “Is the Role of Work Engagement Essential to Employee Performance or ‘Nice to Have’?” Sustainability, 11: 1050.
• Kim, S. ve Park, S. (2014). “Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions of Public Employees: Evidence from US Federal Agencies”, International Review of Public Administration, 19(1): 63-90.
• Kteily, N.S., ve Bruneau, E. (2017). “Darker Demons of Our Nature: The Need to (Re)Focus Attention on Blatant Forms of Dehumanization”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6): 487–494
• Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A. ve Cotterill, S. (2015). “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5): 901–931.
• Kteily, N., Hodson, G. ve Bruneau, E. (2016). “They See Us as Less than Human: Metadehumanization Predicts Intergroup Conflict via Reciprocal Dehumanization”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3): 343-370.
• Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. ve Barton, S.M. (2001). “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intent: A Test of a Structural Measurement Model Using a National Sample of Workers”, The Social Science Journal, 38(2): 233-250.
• Leyens, J.P., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R. ve Paladino, M.P. (2007). “Infra-Humanization: The Wall of Group Differences”, Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1): 139–172.
• Lu, L., Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D. ve Neale, N.R. (2016). “Work Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: A Comparison between Supervisors and Line-Level Employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28: 737-761.
• Mackinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. ve Sheets, V. (2002). “A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and other Intervening Variable Effects”, Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83-104.
• Maiese, M. (2003, July). “Dehumanization”. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization [28.07.2019].
• McShane, S.L., Steen, S. (2009). “Canadian Organizational Behaviour” (7th Ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
• Mikkola, M. (2016). “The Wrong of Injustice: Dehumanization and its Role in Feminist Philosophy”. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Naing, L., Winn, T. ve Rusli, B.N. (2006). “Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies”, Archives of Orofacial Sciences,1, 9-14.
• Nguyen, N. ve Stinglhamber, F. (2018). “Emotional Labor and Core Self-Evaluations as Mediators between Organizational Dehumanization and Job Satisfaction”, Current Psychology, 1-9.
• Notter, J., Grant, M. (2012). “Humanize: How People-Centric Organizations Succeed in a Social World”. Indianapolis, Indiana: Que Publishing.
• O’Connor, J. (2018). “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on the Turnover Intent of Executive Level Central Office Administrators in Texas Public School Districts: A Quantitative Study of Work Related Constructs”, Education Sciences, 8(69): 1-13.
• Opotow, S. (1990). “Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction”, Journal of Social Issues, 46(1): 1–20.
• Ojo, F.Y. ve Yinyinola, W.L. (2015). “Dehumanization in Workplace: Counselling Approach to Gender Based Violence”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(6): 1-5.
• Orgambídez-Ramos, A. ve de Almeida, H. (2017). “Work Engagement, Social Support, and Job Satisfaction in Portuguese Nursing Staff: A Winning Combination”, Applied Nursing Research, 36: 37–41.
• Peake, S. ve McDowall, A. (2012). “Chaotic Careers: A Narrative Analysis of Career Transition Themes and Outcomes using Chaos Theory as a Guiding Metaphor”, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 40(4): 395–410.
• Rayton, B.A. ve Yalabik, Z.Y. (2014) “Work Engagement, Psychological Contract Breach and Job Satisfaction”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(17): 2382-2400.
• Richmond, ‎V.P., McCroskey, ‎J.C. ve McCroskey, L.L. (2005). “Organizational Communication for Survival: Making Work, Work”. USA: Pearson Education. Saks, A.M. (2006). “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21: 600–619
• Schaufeli, W.B. ve Bakker, A.B. (2004). “Job Demands, Job Resources, and their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 293-315.
• Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M. ve De Witte, H. (2017, October 17). “An Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement: The UWES-3 Validation Across Five Countries”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication.
• Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A. ve Tetrick, L.E. (2012). “The Employee-Organization Relationship: Applications for the 21st Century”. New York: Routledge/Psychology Press.
• Smith, D.L. (2011). “Less than Human: Why we Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others”. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
• Sobel, M.E. (1982). “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models”, Sociological Methodology, 13: 290-312.
• Somos, A. (2014). “Humanize Your Workplace: 5 Tips to Improve the Employee ‘Lived Experience’”. HR. Com, 31(6): 1-2.
• Sonnentag, S. (2003). “Recovery, Work Engagement, and Proactive Behavior: A New Look at the Interface between Nonwork and Work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 518-528.
• Tepayakul, R. ve Rinthaisong, I. (2018). “Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement among Human Resources Staff of Thai Private Higher Education Institutions”, The Journal of Behavioral Science, Behavioral Science Research Institute, 13(2): 68-81.
• Tabachnick, B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7. Baskı). NY: Pearson Education.
• Tham, P. (2007). “Why Are They Leaving? Factors Affecting Intention to Leave among Social Workers in Child Welfare”, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 1225–1246. van Schalkwyk, S., Du Toit, D.H., Bothma, A.S. ve Rothmann, S. (2010). “Job Insecurity, Leadership Empowerment Behaviour, Employee Engagement and Intention to Leave in a Petrochemical Laboratory”, South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(1): e1-e7 .
• Väyrynen, T. ve Laari-Salmela, S. (2015). “Men, Mammals, or Machines? Dehumanization Embedded in Organizational Practices”, Journal of Business Ethics, 147: 95–113.
• Yeh, C.M. (2013). “Tourism Involvement, Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction among Hotel Employees”, Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 214-239.
• Zhang, H., Chan, D.K., Xia, S., Tian, Y. ve Zhu, J. (2017). “Cognitive, Emotional and Motivtional Consequences of Dehumanization”, Social Cognition, 35(1): 18–39.