ÖZ YETERLİLİK İLE ZORUNLU ÖRGÜTSEL VATANDAŞLIK DAVRANIŞI İLİŞKİSİ: BİR BÜYÜKŞEHİR BELEDİYESİNDE İNCELEME

Öz

Örgütlerin amaçlarına ulaşmalarındaki önemli faktörlerden biri de çalışanların gönüllü olarak formal yükümlülüklerinin üzerinde performans sergilemeleri sonucu ortaya çıkan rol ötesi davranışlardır. Bu davranışlar mevcut yazında örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı olarak bilinmektedir. Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarının gönüllü bir biçimde değil de kimi baskı unsurları tarafından tetiklenerek ortaya çıkması halinde ortaya zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları çıkmaktadır. Zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları, arzu edilmeyen ve örgütsel performansı olumsuz etkileyen davranış biçimleri olduğundan örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarının karanlık yüzü şeklinde ifade edilmektedir. Psikolojik ve fizyolojik olarak yeterli olan ve bu yeterliliği hisseden çalışanların benzerlerine oranla daha yüksek performans göstermesi beklenecektir. Söz konusu bu yeterlilik hissi, belirli performans derecelerine ulaşmak amacıyla bireyin bir grup aksiyonu organize etme ve başarma kapasitesine olan inancı şeklinde ifade edilen öz yeterlilik kavramı ile kazanılabilecektir. Kamu yönetiminde meydana gelen hızlı değişim ve dönüşüm, günümüzde belediyelere de sayıca ve çeşit olarak artan görevler yüklemiştir. Belediyelerin bu görevleri yerine getirebilecek performans düzeyine ulaşabilmesini sağlayacak en önemli unsurlardan biri de insan kaynağıdır. Belediyelerde de insan kaynağından maksimum fayda sağlanması amacıyla çalışanların rutin rollerinin ötesinde sorumluluklar üstlenmeleri ve bu doğrultuda kimi nedenlerle zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları sergilemeleri de mümkündür. Çalışmada öz yeterlilik ile zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki ilişki ile birlikte bu iki değişkenin demografik ve sosyal özelliklere göre farklılaşma durumları da incelenmiştir. Türkiye’de bulunan bir büyükşehir belediyesinin 616 çalışanından anket yöntemi ile toplanan verilerin analizinde SPSS 22.0 paket programından faydalanılmıştır. Analizler neticesinde öz yeterliliğin zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları ile negatif ve anlamlı bir ilişki içinde olduğu ve öz yeterlilik ile zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarının bazı demografik ve sosyal özelliklere duyarlı olduğu tespit edilmiş, çalışanların iyi oluşunu ve örgütsel etkinliği arttırmak için bir dizi öneride bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Zorunlu Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı
• Öz Yeterlilik
• Belediye.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND COMPULSORY ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: A STUDY IN A METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY

Öz

One of the key factors for organizations to achieve their strategic goals is the exhibition of extra-role behaviors, which occur when employees voluntarily perform beyond their formal job responsibilities. In the literature, these behaviors are conceptualized as Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs). However, when such behaviors are not voluntary but emerge as a result of various forms of organizational pressure, they are defined as Compulsory Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (COCBs)- considered the “dark side” of citizenship behaviors because they negatively affect employee well-being and overall organizational performance. Employees who perceive themselves as psychologically and physiologically competent are expected to demonstrate higher levels of performance compared to their peers. This perceived competence is closely linked to the concept of self-efficacy, defined as an individual's belief in their ability to organize, execute, and succeed in achieving specific performance outcomes. Today, municipalities face an increasing number and diversity of tasks due to the rapid transformation occurring in public administration. Human resources have become one of the most critical determinants of municipal performance. In this context, municipal employees may be expected -or feel pressured- to take on responsibilities beyond their routine roles, which can lead to compulsory citizenship behaviors. This study investigates the relationship between self-efficacy and compulsory citizenship behaviors while also exploring the extent to which these variables vary across different demographic and social characteristics. Data were collected from 616 employees working in a metropolitan municipality in Turkey through a structured survey, and analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0. The findings indicate that self-efficacy has a significant and negative relation with compulsory citizenship behaviors and that both variables are sensitive to certain demographic and social characteristics. Based on these results, a series of practical and managerial recommendations is proposed to improve employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Compulsory Organizational Citizenship Behavior
• Self-Efficacy
• Municipality.

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, M. R., & Wider, W. (2022). The moderating effect of self-efficacy on supervisory support and organizational citizenship behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 961270.
2. Alexandra Beauregard, T. (2012). Perfectionism, self‐efficacy and OCB: The moderating role of gender. Personnel Review, 41(5), 590-608.
3. Alhajaj, W. E., & Ahmad, S. Z. (2024). The effectiveness of human resource management practices, work engagement and self-efficacy in minimizing talent turnover intention. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(8), 2414-2440.
4. Alkan, S. E., & Turgut, T. (2015). A research about the relationship of psychological safety and organizational politics perception with compulsory citizenship behavior and the pressures behind compulsory citizenship behavior. Research journal of Business and Management, 2(2), 185-203.
5. Anfajaya, M. A., & Rahayu, A. (2020, January). The role of self-efficacy in organizational citizenship behavior. In 5th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2019) (pp. 108-111). Atlantis Press.
6. Arseven, A. (2016). Öz Yeterlilik: Bir Kavram Analizi. Turkish Studies, 11/19, 63-80
7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
8. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
10. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In. VS Ramachaudran. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4(4), 71-81.
11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
12. Bashir, M., Shaheen, K., Saleem, S., Bhutta, M. K., Abrar, M., & Jun, Z. (2019). The mediating role of psychological need thwarting in the relationship between compulsory citizenship behavior and psychological withdrawal. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2595.
13. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What's a “good soldier” to do?. Journal of Organizational behavior, 31(6), 835-855.
14. Bozdoğan, S. C. (2022). Moderator Effect Of Prosocıal Motivation On Relationship Between Compulsory Citizenship Behavior And Burnout. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(49), 14-28.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2024). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (31. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
16. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self–efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 26(2), 218-239.
17. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational research methods, 4(1).
18. Choi, W. S., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2021). Innovative behavior in the workplace: An empirical study of moderated mediation model of self-efficacy, perceived organizational support, and leader–member exchange. Behavioral Sciences, 11(12), 182, 1-17.
19. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334
20. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Ankara: Pegem akademi.
21. Dunleavy, P., Hood, C.C. (1994). “From Old Public Administration to New Public Management”, Public Money and Management, 14(2), 9-16.
22. Eibl, B., Lang, F. R., & Niessen, C. (2020). Employee voice at work: The role of employees’ gender, self-efficacy beliefs, and leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(4), 570-585.
23. Eryılmaz, B. (2017). Kamu Yönetimi (10. Baskı). Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları.
24. Fesli, G., ve Alıcı, O. V. (2024). Büyükşehir Belediyelerinde İç Denetim ve Teftiş Kurullarının Etkinliği. Denetişim, (29), 47-64.
25. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
26. Gecas, V. (2004). Self-agency and the life course. Handbook of the life course, 369-390.
27. Göçoğlu, V., & Gündüz, O. (2020). Kamu yönetimi reformlarını yeni kamu işletmeciliği bağlamında okumak. Ekonomi İşletme Siyaset ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 6(1), 1-16
28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
29. Hameli, K., Vehapi, A., & Tafili, E. (2025). Fostering innovative work behavior: the role of organizational support and employee self-efficacy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.1-15
30. Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Aproach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
31. He, P., Wang, X., Wu, M., & Estay, C. (2018). Compulsory citizenship behavior and employee silence: The roles of emotional exhaustion and organizational identification. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(12), 2025-2047.
32. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
33. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337–421.
34. Hung, T. K., Wang, C. H., Tian, M., Lin, M., & Liu, W. H. (2022). How to prevent stress in the workplace by emotional regulation? The relationship between compulsory citizen behavior, job engagement, and job performance. Sage Open, 12(2), 21582440221105483.
35. Karaman, A., & Aylan, S. (2012). Örgütsel Vatandaşlık. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 35-48.
36. Kline, R. B., 2015 Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford publications.
37. Köseoğlu, İ. (2024). Türk Kamu Yönetiminde İç Denetimin Gelişimi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Denetişim, (30), 65-81.
38. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
39. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.
40. Nesterkin, D. A. (2013). Organizational change and psychological reactance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 573-594.
41. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 93(2), 392-423.
42. Oktay, R. (2020). Kişi-iş uyumu ve dönüşümcü liderliğin çalışanların öz-yeterlilik algısı üzerindeki etkisi . Yayımlanmış doktora tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
43. Osborne, J. W., & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: what it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(15), n15.
44. Ömürgönülşen, U. (2003). Kamu sektörünün yönetimi sorununa yeni bir yaklaşım: Yeni kamu işletmeciliği. Muhittin Acar, Hüseyin Özgür (Ed.). Çağdaş kamu yönetimi I içinde (s. 3–43). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
45. Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Ayoko, O., & Saunders, D. (2013). Transformational leadership and innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 595-610.
46. Peng, Z. L., & Zhao, H. D. (2012). Does organization citizenship behavior really benefit the organization? Study on the compulsory citizenship behavior in China. Nankai Business Review International, 3(1), 75-92.
47. Rizma, A. (2024). The Influence of Self-Efficacy and Employee Engagement on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of Civil Servants at the Office of Women's Empowerment and Child Protection in West Kalimantan. Dinasti International Journal of Economics, Finance & Accounting (DIJEFA), 5(4).
48. Rotich, V. K. (2022). Self-efficacy, demographic characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior among management employees in public organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Management Research, 10(4), 45–60.
49. Sadioğlu, U. & Ömürgönülşen, U. (2013). Belediyelerde Personel Politikasını Stratejik Planlar Üzerinden Okumak: İl Belediyeler Örneği. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 8(19-20), 63-96.
50. Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., ve Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. J. Adv. Nurs. 67, 2256–2266.
51. Sayan, İ. Ö., Övgün, B., & Zengin, O. (2018). Türk kamu yönetiminde performans değerlendirmesi ve denetimi mümkün mü?. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2018(2), 74-92.
52. Smith, C. A. O. D. W. N. J. P., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.
53. Şehitoğlu, Y., & Zehir, C. (2010). Türk kamu kuruluşlarında çalışan performansının, çalışan sessizliği ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı bağlamında incelenmesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 43(4), 87-110.
54. Şeşen, H., Soran, S. ( Mayıs 2013). Örgütsel Vatandaşlıktan Zorunlu Vatandaşlığa: Zorunlu Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışının Bazı Faktörlerle İlişkisi. 21. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. İşletme Bölümü, Kütahya.
55. Stajkovic, A. D., ve Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 124, 240–261
56. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., ve Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, No. 7). Boston, MA: pearson.
57. Tyler, K. M. (2006). A descriptive study of teacher perceptions of self-efficacy and differentiated classroom behaviors in working with gifted learners in Title I heterogeneous classrooms. The College of William and Mary.
58. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 36(1).
59. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of business and psychology, 21, 377-405.
60. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., ve Erdoğan, S. (2007). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Detay Yayıncılık, 2. Baskı, Ankara, (s 72).
61. Yıldız, B. (2016). Madalyonun Öteki Yüzü: Zorunlu örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Business & Economics Journal, 2, 88-99
62. Yıldız, B., Uzun, S., & Coskun, S. (2017). Drivers of innovative behaviors: The moderator roles of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(3), 341-360.
63. Yıldız, B. (2022). The reliability and validity of the compulsory citizenship behaviors (CCBs) scale: six-step R-based psychometrics protocol among nurses in Turkey. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 58(1).
64. Yıldız, B., Kaptan, Z., Yildiz, T., Elibol, E., Yildiz, H., & Ozbilgin, M. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the relationship between compulsory citizenship behaviors and its theoretical correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1120209.
65. Zhang, Y., Liao, J., & Zhao, J. (2011). Research on the organizational citizenship behavior continuum and its consequences. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5(3), 364-379.
66. Zhang, Y., Hung, W. J., Dong, H. K., & Chen, D. Y. (2024). Public Employees' whistleblowing intention: Explanation by an adapted theory of planned behavior. Public Administration, 103(1), 115-135.