REFLECTION OF CRAB SYNDROME ON INNOVATIVE BEHAVIORS: MEDIATOR ROLE OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND AN APPLICATION IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES ENTERPRISES

Öz

This research was conducted for the purpose of detecting the mediator role of perceived organizational support in the innovative behavior effect of the crab syndrome. For this purpose, the study was carried out according to the screening model, one of the quantitative research designs. In the research model created based on social comparison and social change theories, the crab syndrome predictor variable, perceived organizational support mediator variable and innovative behavior outcome variable were considered. The sample of the research consists of 200 participants working in the IT sector. The hypotheses of the research were tested using the structural equation model and bootstrap method. According to the results of the research, it was seen that the crab syndrome negatively predicted innovative behavior and perceived organizational support had a full mediator effect in this relation. The contributions and limitations of the research were discussed, and suggestions for future studies were presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Crab Syndrome
• Perceived Organizational Support
• Innovative Behavior

YENGEÇ SENDROMUNUN YENİLİKÇİ DAVRANIŞLAR ÜZERİNDEKİ YANSIMASI: ALGILANAN ÖRGÜTSEL DESTEĞİN ARACI ROLÜ VE BİLİŞİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ İŞLETMELERİNDE BİR UYGULAMA

Öz

Bu çalışma, yengeç sendromunun yenilikçi davranışlara etkisinde algılanan örgütsel desteğin aracılık rolünü tespit etmek amacı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışma nicel araştırma desenlerinden tarama modeline göre yürütülmüştür. Sosyal karşılaştırma ve sosyal değişim kuramlarına dayanarak oluşturulan araştırma modelinde yengeç sendromu tahmin değişkeni, algılanan örgütsel destek aracı değişken ve yenilikçi davranış sonuç değişkeni olarak ele alınmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, bilişim sektöründe çalışan 200 katılımcı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın hipotezleri yapısal eşitlik modeli ve bootstrap yöntemi kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, yengeç sendromunun yenilikçi davranışı negatif olarak yordadığı ve algılanan örgütsel desteğin bu ilişkide tam aracı etkisinin olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmanın katkıları ve kısıtları tartışılmış, gelecek çalışmalar için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yengeç Sendromu
• Algılanan Örgütsel Destek
• Yenilikçi Davranış

Kaynakça

1. Akalın, Ç. (2006). Duygusal örgütsel bağlılık gelişiminde çalışanların algıladıkları örgütsel destek ve ara bir değişken olarak örgüt temelli öz saygı. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
2. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
3. Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3), 321-333.
4. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (3rd Edn.). New York: Routledge.
5. Brockner, J. and Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 (1), 35-66. 2001doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972.
6. Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T. and Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00007-7.
7. Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
8. Caples, C. (2016). Does the “Crabs in bucket syndrome” still exist?. https://medium.com/@CEOCaples/does-the-crabs-in-a-bucket-syndrome-still-exist-written-by-derrick-ceo-caples-4b823b2297ff (erişim tarihi: 10.11.2018).

9. Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
10. Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
11. DeJong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010). Creativity and innovation management. Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour, 19(1), 23-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
12. Dirican, A. H. (2020). İstismarcı yönetim ve psikolojik sözleşme ihlalinin çalışanların işe gömülmüşlükleri üzerine etkisinde algılanan örgütsel desteğin aracı rolü. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze.
13. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Applied Psychology Journal, 71 (3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
14. Eisenberger, R., and Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. American Psychological Association, https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000
15. Ford, C. M. (1996). The role of creative action in organizational learning and change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 54-62.
16. Furnham, A. (2018). Personality and occupational success. (Zeigler-Hill, V. and Shackelford, T.K. Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Applications of Personality and Individual Differences, Sage Reference, pp. 537-551, doi: 10.4135/ 9781526451248.n23.
17. Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B. and Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227-236.
18. Goethals G.R. and Darley J.M. (1987). Social comparison theory: Self-Evaluation and group life. In: Mullen B., Goethals G.R. (edt.) Theories of Group Behavior, 21-47. New York: Springer.
19. Goodhue, D., Lewis, W. and Thompson, R. (2006). PLS, small sample size, and statistical power in MIS research. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), Kauia, HI, USA, 1-10.
20. Hu, L-T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
21. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46. New York: Academic Press.
22. Janssen, O. and Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual differentiation as complementary drivers of team members' citizenship and creative behaviours. Journal of Management, 34(1), 69-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309263.
23. Judge, T. and Zapata, C. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837.
24. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
25. Khan, A. Z. K. and Chandrakar, R. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support and personality dimensions as predictors of job satisfaction. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 8(1), 54-56.
26. Kim, K. Y. and Baik, K. (2018). Is the HR department representative of the organization? HPWP and perceived organizational support. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1, Briarcliff Manor, NY, doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11804abstract
27. Kong, Y., Li, M. (2018). Proactive personality and innovative behavior: The mediating roles of job-related affect and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An İnternational Journal, 46(3), 431-446(16).
28. Kuhl, J., Kazen, M. and Koole, S.L. (2006). Putting self-regulation theory into practice: a user’s manual. Applied Psychology: International Review, 55(3), 408-418.
29. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Edn.). London: The Guilford Press.
30. Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., and Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467-483.
31. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. and Willliams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
32. Makri, E. and Ntalianis, F. (2015). Post M and A ill-health: main, moderating and mediating effects of job stressors and perceived organizational support. Employee Relations, 37(2), 176-191, doi: 10.1108/ER-07-2014-0084.
33. Martins, E. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
34. Malhotra, N. and Dash, S. (2011). Marketing research an applied orientation. Pearson Publishing: London.
35. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. and Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
36. Michael, H. L. A., Hou, S. T. and Fan, H. L. (2011). Creative self-efficacy and ınnovative behavior in a service setting: optimism as a moderator. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 258-272.
37. Miller, C. D. (2019). Exploring the crabs in the barrel syndrome in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 352-371.
38. Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Atıf, M. M., Qun, W. and Abdullah, S. M. (2019). How organization justice and perceived organizational support facilitate employees’ innovative behavior at work. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 41(6), 1288-1311.
39. Özdemir, Y. and Üzüm, B. (2019). Yengeç sendromu. E. Kaygın ve G. Kosa (Ed.), Olumsuz Boyutlarıyla Örgütsel Davranış (ss.125-138). Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
40. Pegues, A. D. (2018). An investigation into the social and individual conditions that promote instigated acts of workplace incivility between black professionals. (Doctora Thesis). Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Columbia University, Columbia.
41. Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A Review of the literatüre. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
42. Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of ınnovative behavior: A path model of ındividual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
43. Sears, G. J. and Han, Y. (2021). Do employee responses to organizational support depend on their personality? The joint moderating role of conscientiousness and emotional stability. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(5), 1130-1146.
44. Spacey, S. (2015). Crab mentality, cyberbullying and “name and shame” rankings. availablehttps://www.srl.to/u5e2dNha/Crab%20Mentality%2C%20Cyberbullying%20and%20Name%20and%20 Shame%20Rankings.pdf (erişim tarihi: 11.11.2018)
45. Uçar, A. C. (2019). Liderlik türlerinin çalışanların yenilikçi davranış ve yaratıcı davranışlarına etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze.
46. Üzüm, B. and Özdemir, Y. (2020). Yengeç sendromu “Ben yapamazsam sen de yapamazsın” ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Örgütsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 241-252.
47. Üzüm, B., Özkan, O. S. and Köse, S. (2021). Yaşam doyumu yengeç sendromunun frenine basabilir mi?. 8. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, 5-7 Kasım 2021, Muğla.
48. Thomas, B. (2004). Mentality harms minorities. The George-Anne.
49. Woods, S. A., Mustafa, M.J., Anderson, N. and Sayer, B. (2017). Innovative work behavior and personality traits: Examining the moderating effects of organizational tenure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2017-0016
50. Woodman, R., Sayer, J. and Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
51. Wu, J. and, Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnal Psychology, 64(3), 593-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01220.x
52. Zhang,Y., Zhang, J., Forest, F., and Chen, C. (2018). The negative and positive aspects of employees’ ınnovative behavior: Role of goals of employees and supervisors. Front Psychol.
53. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. and Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research Inc., 37(2), 197-206.