Okul Yöneticilerinin Motivasyonel Dil Kullanımının Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Destek Algıları ve İşle Bütünleşmeleri Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul yöneticilerinin motivasyonel dil kullanımının öğretmenlerin örgütsel destek algıları ve işle bütünleşmeleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın örneklemi, Gaziantep'teki ilkokullardan oransız küme örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak seçilen 394 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler yapısal eşitlik modeli ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, çalışma değişkenleri arasında doğrudan pozitif ilişkiler ve motivasyonel dil ile işle bütünleşme arasında algılanan örgütsel desteğin kısmi aracılık rolü olduğunu göstermiştir. Okul yöneticileri tarafından kullanılan motivasyonel dil hem doğrudan hem de algılanan örgütsel destek aracılığıyla öğretmenlerin işle bütünleşmelerini anlamlı bir şekilde etkilemektedir. Motivasyonel dil kullanımı öğretmenlerin işleri ile daha çok bütünleşmelerini sağlarken; aynı zamanda örgütsel destek algılarının artmasıyla birlikte daha fazla işle bütünleşme davranışı sergilemektedirler. Bu nedenle, okul yöneticilerinin öğretmenlere destek sağlamak ve bağlılıklarını artırmak için motivasyonel bir dil kullanmaları teşvik edilmelidir. İleriki araştırmalarda, motivasyonel dil kullanımı ve örgütsel desteğin istenen düzeyde gerçekleşmediği okulların belirlenmesine odaklanılabilir. Bu sayede alınacak önlemler ve yapılacak çalışmalarla, öğretmenlerin işle bütünleşmeleri artırılarak okul gelişimine aktif katılımları sağlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Motivasyonel dil
• İşle bütünleşme
• Algılanan örgütsel destek
• Okul yöneticisi
• Öğretmen

The Effect of School Administrators’ Use of Motivational Language on Teachers’ Organizational Support Perceptions and Work Engagement

Öz

This study examines the effect of school administrators’ motivational language use on teachers’ perceptions of organizational support and work engagement. The study sample included 394 teachers who were selected using a disproportionate cluster sampling method from primary schools in Gaziantep. The relationships between the variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results indicated direct positive relations among the study variables and a partial mediating role of perceived organizational support between motivational language and work engagement. Motivational language used by school administrators significantly predicts teachers’ work engagement directly and through perceived organizational support. While the use of motivational language enables teachers to engage more with their work; at the same time, they display more work engagement behaviors with increased perceptions of organizational support. Therefore, school administrators should be encouraged to use motivational language to provide support and improve teacher engagement. Further research could focus on identifying schools where motivational language use and organizational support are not occurring at the desired levels. In this way, with the measures and activities to be taken, teachers’ engagement with their work can be increased, and their active participation in school development can be ensured.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Motivational language
• Work engagement
• Perceived organizational support
• School administrator
• Teacher

Kaynakça

1. Abdollahi, F., Piri, M., & Azimi, M. (2013). The relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment among faculty members. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(4), 475–479.
2. Ahmed, I., & Nawaz, M. M. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes of perceived organizational support: A literature survey approach. Journal of Management Development, 34(7), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0115
3. Akın, M. (2008). Örgütsel destek, sosyal destek ve iş/aile çatışmalarının yaşam tatmini üzerindeki etkileri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(25), 141–171.
4. Alqahtani, A. A. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ motivating language and public school climates in Kuwait. Management in Education, 29(3), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020615584104
5. Argon, T. (2014). Eğitim kurumlarında insan kaynaklarının desteklenmesi: Yönetici desteğine yönelik öğretmen görüşleri. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 691–729. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v11i2.2848
6. Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(83), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.288
7. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
8. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. http://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

9. Bogler, R., & Nir, A. E. (2012). The importance of teachers' perceived organizational support to job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211223310
10. Brannon, K. L. (2011). The effects of leader communication medium and motivating language on perceived leader effectiveness [Unpublished doctorate dissertation]. Northcentral University.
11. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
12. Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management Executives, 5(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274713
13. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
14. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader‐member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00570.x
15. De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2008). Organizational communication and job satisfaction in Australian Catholic primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207084063
16. Demir, S. (2018). Okul yöneticilerinin kullandıkları motivasyonel dil ile öğretmen motivasyonu arasındaki ilişki. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(5), 633–638. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.395472
17. Demir, S. (2019). Okul yöneticisinin kullandığı motivasyonel dil ile öğretmenin yöneticisine duyduğu güven ilişkisi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21, 165–180. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.468817
18. Derinbay, D. (2011). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin algıladıkları örgütsel destek düzeyleri [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
19. Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2008). Perceived organizational support: Reducing the negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 34(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309259
20. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Patrick L. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
21. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
22. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Oriental Press.
23. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill.
24. Gutierrez-Wirsching, S., Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Wang, W. (2015). Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee outcomes. Management Research Review, 38(12), 1234–1250. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0009
25. Haider, G., Ashraf, I., & Malik, H. A. (2018). Motivational language as mediator between leadership styles and employees’ job satisfaction. Governance and Management Review, 3(2), 24–45.
26. Hakanen, J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
27. Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). ‘‘Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
28. Handa, M., & Gulati, A. (2014). Employee engagement. Journal of Management Research, 14(1), 57–67.
29. Haroon, M., & Akbar, A. (2016). Leader's motivating language and job performance: Mediating role of job satisfaction. NUML International Journal of Business & Management, 11(1), 70–84.
30. Haroon, H., & Malik, H. D. (2018). The impact of organizational communication on organizational performance. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 6(2), 140–151.
31. Holmes, P. (2012). Business and management education. In Jackson, J. A. Jackson, (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 464–480). Routledge.
32. Holmes, W. T. (2016). Motivating language theory: Antecedent variables – critical to both the success of leaders and organizations. Development and Learning in Organizations, 30(3), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-10-2015-0085
33. Holmes, W. T., & Parker, M. A. (2018). The relationship between behavioural integrity, competence, goodwill, trustworthiness, and motivating language of a principal. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1430687
34. Hosseinabadi, S. (2022). The impact of transformational ad servant leadership on work engagement with the mediating effect of motivating language [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Tallinn University of Technology.
35. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
36. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
37. Ingusci, E., Callea, A., Chirumbolo, A., & Urbini, F. (2016). Job crafting and job satisfaction in a sample of Italian teachers: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 9(4), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20705948v9n4p675
38. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
39. Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (21. Bs.). Nobel Yayınları.
40. Kavgacı, H., & Çalık, T. (2017). Öğretmenlerin işle bütünleşme düzeylerinin örgütsel ve bireysel değişkenlerle ilişkisi: Bir çoklu aracılık modeli. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2017.008
41. Klassen, R. M., Aldhafri, S., Mansfield, C. F., Purwanto, E., Siu, A. F., Wong, M. W., & Woods-McConney, A. (2012). Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(4), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.678409
42. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
43. Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T. L. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2), 33–52.
44. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
45. Köse, A., & Uzun, M. (2018). Kendini işe verme ile algılanan örgütsel adalet arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(3), 483–528. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.012
46. Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
47. Lee, A. N., Nie, Y., & Bai, B. (2020). Perceived principal's learning support and its relationships with psychological needs satisfaction, organisational commitment and change-oriented work behaviour: A Self-Determination Theory’s perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 93, 103076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103076
48. Liao-Holbrook, F. (2012). Integrating leader fairness and leader-member exchange in predicting work engagement: A contingency approach [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Portland State University.
49. Madlock, P. E., & Sexton, S. (2015). An application of motivating language theory in Mexican organizations. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415572783
50. Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1995). Motivational language: Exploring theory with scale development. The Journal of Business Communication, 32(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369503200402
51. Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37(3-4), 235–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199823/24)37:3/4<235::AID-HRM6>3.0.CO;2-X
52. Mayfield, J., & Mayfield M. (2002). Leader communication strategies critical paths to improving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20(2), 89–94.
53. Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2016). The diffusion process of strategic motivating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication, 56(3), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416629093
54. Meriç, E., Çiftci, D. Ö., & Yurtal, F. (2019). Algılanan örgütsel destek ve işe adanmışlık arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2296
55. Mueller, B. H., & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational communication satisfaction in multiple contexts. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360203900204
56. Özen, H. (2013). Okul müdürlerine yönelik motivasyonel dil ölçeği: Türk kültürüne uyarlama, dil geçerliği ve faktör yapısının incelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2013.315a
57. Özen, H. (2014). Motivasyonel dil teorisi ışığında okul müdürlerinin kullandığı motivasyonel dilin öğretmenlerin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarına olan etkisi. Turkish Studies, 9(5), 1731–1746.
58. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Allen & Unwin.
59. Rahaman, H. S. (2012). Organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction among school teachers: Comparing public and private sectors in Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Management, 19(3), 7–17.
60. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<159::AID-JOB881>3.0.CO;2-7
61. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698
62. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
63. Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers' organizational citizenship behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.008
64. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
65. Sabir, S., & Bhutta, Z. M. (2018). Leader motivating language as predictor of organizational commitment among generation Y teachers: The mediating role of organizational climate. NUML International Journal of Business & Management, 13(1), 118–133.
66. Sarros, J. C., Luca, E., Densten, I., & Santora, J. C. (2014). Leaders and their use of motivating language. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(3), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2012-0073
67. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
68. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
69. Segers, J., DePrins, P., & Brouwers, S. (2010). Leadership and engagement: A brief review of the literature, a proposed model, and practical implications. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 149–158). Edward Elgar Publishing.
70. Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
71. Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903513916
72. Simmons, S. A., & Sharbrough III, W. C. (2013). An analysis of leader and subordinate perception of motivating language. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(3), 11–27.
73. Sivik, S. (2018). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel adanmışlıkları ile lider-üye etkileşimi ve motivasyonel dil kullanımı arasındaki ilişki [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
74. Stephon, J. (2016). The effect of perceived organisational support and motivating language of leaders on job performance, satisfaction and commitment of employees [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).
75. Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306798
76. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
77. Tao, W., Lee, Y., Sun, R., Li, J. Y., & He, M. (2022). Enhancing employee engagement via leaders’ motivational language in times of crisis: Perspectives from the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102133
78. Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.303-310
79. Wildermuth, C. (2008). Engaged to serve: The relationship between employee engagement and the personality of human services professionals and paraprofessionals [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bowling Green State University.
80. Yakut, S., & Maya, İ. (2022). Okul müdürlerinin kullandığı motivasyonel dilin öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığı üzerine etkisi. Biga İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 68–82.
81. Yerdelen, S., Durksen, T., & Klassen, R. M. (2018). An international validation of the engaged teacher scale. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 673–689.https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1457024
82. Yuan, K. H., Bentler, P. M., & Zhang, W. (2005). The effect of skewness and kurtosis on mean and covariance structure analysis: The univariate case and its multivariate implication. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(2), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124105280200