YÖNETİCİLERİN KULLANDIKLARI MOTİVASYONEL DİL VE PERFORMANS ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Öz

Problem durumu: Yönetimde iletişimin önemini gösteren birçok araştırma yapılmış olsa da, yöneticinin kullandığı dili inceleyen araştırmaların sayısı azdır. Ayrıca, sınırlı sayıdaki bu araştırmalarda genellikle yöneticinin kullandığı dilin belirsizliği azaltıcı özelliğine odaklanılmış ve dilin anlam yaratan özelliği ihmal edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, anlam yaratıcı bir etkisi olan motivasyonel dil kullanımı ve motivasyonel dilin performansla olan ilişkisini araştıran yeterli sayıda çalışma bulunmamaktadır.Araştırmanın Amacı: Yapılan bu araştırmanın amacı; problem durumunda belirtilen eksikliğin kapatılmasında önemli bir araç olan Motivasyonel Dil Teorisini incelemek ve yöneticinin kullandığı motivasyonel dilin performans üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır.Yöntem: Araştırma, veri toplama tekniği olarak anketin kullanıldığı görgül bir araştırmadır. Toplanan veriler, SPSS 16.0 ve AMOS 6.0 programları ile analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeklerin geçerliliği için açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, hipotezlerin testi için regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır.ve AMOS 6.0 programları ile analiz edilprogramları ile analiz edilBulgular ve Sonuç: Elde edilen bulgulara göre; yöneticinin kullandığı motivasyonel dil, çalışanların kendi ve yöneticilerinin performanslarına yönelik algıları üzerinde olumlu yönde etkilidir.Öneriler: Araştırma ile elde edilen bulguların, yönetsel iletişim ve performans konusunda çalışma yapan araştırmacılara, iletişimi farklı bir boyutta incelemeleri açısından faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Motivasyon Dil, Motivasyonel Dil Teorisi, Performans, İletişim.

The Motivational Language Used by Managers and It’s Effect on Performance

Öz

Problem Statement: Although there are many researches that represent the importance of communication in management, few researches about the language used by managers exist. Besides, these limited studies generally have focused on reduction of uncertainty of the manager’s language and the characreristic of language which creates the meaning has been mostly ignored. For this reason, it is hard to find enough researches related to motivational language usage which has meaning-creative effect and about relationship of motivational language with performance. Research Aims: Aim of this research is to examine Motivational Language Theory which is thought to be an important tool to solve the deficiancy above-mentioned in problem statement paragraph and to examine the effects of manager’s motivational language on the performance. Method: The study is an emprical one in which survey was used as data collecting method. Collected datas were analyzed with SPSS 16.0 and AMOS 6.0 programs. Explainatory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used for validation of the scales, whereas Regression Analysis have been used for the testing of hypotheses. Findings and Results: According to the research findings, the motivational language used by managers both have a possitive effect on the performance perceptions of employees toward theirselves and their managers. Proposals: It is thought that, the findings of this research may be beneficial to the researchers who study managerial communication and performance to examine the communication in a different aspect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Motivatinoal Language, Motivatinoal Language Theory, Performance, Communication.

Kaynakça

1. Apker, J. (2002). Front-line nurse manager roles, job stressors, and coping strategies in a managed care hospital. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 3 (4), 75-81.
2. Basden, A. ve Klein, H. K. (2008) New research directions for data and knowledge engi- neering: A philosophy of language approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67 (2), 260-285.
3. Baş, T. (2001). Anket. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
4. Batlaş, A. ve Sevil İ. (2007). İşin Lideri Olmak. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
5. Boyd N. M. ve Kyle K. (2004). Expanding the view of performance appraisal by ıntrodu- cing social justice concerns. Administrative Theory & Practice, 26 (3), 249-278.
6. Busby J.S. ve Williams G.M. (1997). The use of frontier analysis for goal setting. Journal of Engineering Design, 8 (1), 53-74.
7. Chory-Assad R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of stu- dent motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50 (1), 58-77.
8. Chua R.Y.J., Ingram P. ve Morris M. M. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Review, 51 (3), 436-452.

9. Coates G. (2004). En-Trusting apprasial to the trust. Gender, Work and Organization, 11 (5), 566-588.
10. Colbert A. E., Kristof-Brown A., Brandley B. H. ve Barrick M. R. (2008). CEO transfor- mational leadership: The role of goal ımportance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (1), 81-96.
11. Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management Executives, 1, 31-34.
12. Crossan M., Lane H. ve White R. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intution to Institution. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 522-538.
13. Esterhammer, A. (1999). Performative language and Speech-act Theory: A Companion to Romanticism. Wu, Duncan (ed). Blackwell Publishing.
14. Fairhurst, G. T., ve Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs, 56, 215-239.
15. Goris J. R., Vaught B. C., Pettit J. D. (2000). Effects of ommunication direction on job performance and satisfaction: A moderated regression anaiysis. The Journal of Bu- siness Communication, 37 (4), 348-368.
16. Gray Judy, Laidlaw Heather (2004). Improving the measurement of communication satis- faction. Management Communication Quarterly, 17 (3), 425-448.
17. Hargie O., Torish D. ve Wilson N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of ınc- reased ınformation: A folloe-up study. The Journal of Business Communication, 39 (4), 414-436.
18. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, endu- ring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
19. Law D. R. (2007). Appraising performance appraisals: A Critical Look at an External Control Management Technique. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26 (2), 18-25.
20. Lüscher L. S. ve Lewis M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensema- king: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (2), 221- 240.
21. Maitlis S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking, Academy of Ma- nagement Journal, 48, 21-49.
22. Mayer R.C., Davis J.H. ve Schoorman F.D. (1995). An ıntegrative model of organizatio- nal trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
23. Mayfield J. ve Mayfield M. (2002). Leader communication strategies critical paths to ımproving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20, 89-94.
24. Mayfield J. ve Mayfield M. (2006). The benefits of leader communication on part-time worker outcomes: A comparison between part-time and full-time employees using motivating language. Journal of Business Strategies, 23 (2), 131-153.
25. Mayfield J. ve Mayfield M. (2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker’s ıntent to stay: an ınvestigation using structural equation modeling. Human Perfor- mance, 20 (2), 85-102.
26. Mayfield J., Mayfield M. ve Kopf, J. (1995). Motivating language: Exploring Theory with scale development. The Journal of Business Communication, 32 (4), 329-344.
27. Mayfield J., Mayfield M. ve Kopf, J. (1998). The effects of motivating language on su- bordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37 (3& 4), 235 -248.
28. Mayfield M. ve Mayfield J. (2004). The effects of leader communication on worker inno- vation. American Business Review, 22, 46-51.
29. Mazutis D. ve Slawinski N. (2008). Learnining organizational throuhg authentic dialo- gue. Management Learning, 39 (4), 437-456.
30. Mert, İ.S., Keskin N. ve Baş T. (2011). Motivasyonel Dil (MD) Teorisi ve ölçme aracı- nın Türkçe’de geçerlik ve güvenilirlik analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi (Yayım aşamasında).
31. Meydan, C. H. ve Harun Ş. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
32. Mount, A. (2008). Intentions, gestures, and salience in ordinary and deffered demonstra- tive reference. Mind and Language, 23 (2), 145-164.
33. Mueller B. H. ve Lee J. (2002). Leader-Member exchange and organizational communi- cation satisfaction in multiple contexts. The Journal of Business Communication, 39 (2), 220-244.
34. Onaran O. (1981). Çalışma Yaşamında Güdülenme Kuramları, Ankara: Ankara Üniversi- tesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
35. Pallant J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual, Philadeelphia: Open University Pres.
36. Pettit J.D., Goris J.R. ve Vaught B.C. (1997). An examination of organizational com- munication as a moderator of the relationalship between job performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34 (1), 81-98.
37. Poythress V. S. (2008). Canon and speech act: limitations ın speech-act theory, with ımp- lications for a putative theory of canonical speech acts. Westminster Theological Journal, 70 (2), 337-354.
38. Putti J.M., Aryee S. ve Phua J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and orga- nizational commitment. Group and Organization Studies, 15 (1), 44-52.
39. Ray E.B. (1993). When the links become chains: Cosidering the dysfunctions of supporti- ve communication in the workplace. Communication Monographs, 60, 106-111.
40. Scandura, T. ve Graen, G. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428 - 436.
41. Schraeder M. ve Simpson J. (2006). How similarity and linking affect performance app- raisals. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 29 (1), 34-40.
42. Sharbrough W. C., Simmons S. A. ve Cantrill D. A. (2006). Motivating Language in Industry: Its Impact on Job Satisfaction and Perceived Supervisor Effectiveness. Journal of Business Communication, 43 (4), 322-343.
43. Sparrowe, R. ve Liden, R. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505-535.
44. Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 13 (1), 104-115.
45. Varona F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three guatemalan organizations. The Journal of Business Communi- cation, 33 (2), 111 -140.
46. Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relati- onships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58, 288-305.
47. Willmore J. (2004). The Future of Performance. Training and Development, 58 (8), 26- 31.
48. Yearta S. K. ve Maitlis S. (1995). An exploratory study of goal setting in theory and practice: A motivational technique that works? Journal of Occupational and Orga- nizational Psychology, 68, 237-252.
49. Yrle A.C., Hartman S.J. ve Galle W.P. (2003). Examining Communication Style and Leader-Member Exchange: Considerations and Concerns for Managers. Internatio- nal Journal of Management, 20 (1), 92-100.
50. Zorn, T.F. ve Ruccio S.E. (1998). The Use of Communication to motivate College Sales Teams. The Journal of Business Communication, 35 (4), 468-500.
51. Zwijze-Koning K., De Jong M. (2007). Evaluating the Communication Satisfaction Qu- estionnaire as a Communication Audit Tool. Management Communication Quar- terly, 20 (3), 261-282.