Üniversitelerde Örgütsel Dalkavukluk Algısı: Akademisyenler Üzerinde Bir Araştırma

Öz

Günümüzde değerlere dayalı örgütler olarak kabul edilen üniversitelerde etik olmayan davranışların çeşitlenerek arttığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda hiyerarşik yapının belirgin olduğu üniversitelerde etik dışı bir davranış olan dalkavukluk, akademik çevrelerde önemli bir konu olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı üniversitelerde örgütsel dalkavukluk algısının incelenmesidir. Bu bağlamda akademisyenlerin örgütsel dalkavukluğu nasıl tanımladıkları, dalkavukluk davranışına karşı nasıl tepki verdikleri, dalkavukluğun sonuçları hakkında ne düşündükleri, dalkavukluk davranışlarının onların iş tatmini ve performanslarını nasıl etkilediği araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında 36 akademisyenle mülakat gerçekleştirilmiştir. Akademisyenlerin vermiş oldukları yanıtlar içerik analizi tekniğine uygun bir biçimde belirlenen temalar kapsamında derinlemesine işlenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, üniversitelerde dalkavukluk davranışlarının oldukça yaygın olduğunu, akademik ortamda çeşitli olumsuz sonuçlara yol açtığını ve dalkavukluk davranışına yönelten birçok faktörün olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, örgütsel dalkavukluk üniversitelerde akademik başarı, işbirliği ve örgütsel kültürle iç içe geçmiş bir olgudur. Dalkavukluk davranışlarının, akademisyenlerin yöneticilere karşı sergiledikleri tutumlar ve bu tutumların örgütsel yapılar içindeki yeri, akademik çevrelerde daha fazla araştırma gerektiren bir konudur. Bu bağlamda, üniversitelerde dalkavukluk üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, akademik başarı ve iş ortamının iyileştirilmesi için önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etik
• Örgütsel Dalkavukluk
• Akademik Dalkavukluk
• Üniversite
• Akademisyen

Perception of Organizational Sycophancy in Universities: A Research on Academicians

Öz

Today, it is seen that unethical behaviors are diversifying and increasing in universities, which are accepted as value-based organizations. In this context, sycophancy, which is an unethical behavior in universities where the hierarchical structure is evident, emerges as an important issue in academic circles. The aim of this study is to examine the perception of organizational sycophancy in universities. In the study, 36 academicians were interviewed within the scope of qualitative research method. The answers given by the academics were processed in depth within the scope of the themes determined in accordance with the content analysis technique. The results of the study showed that sycophantic behavior is quite common in universities, that it leads to various negative consequences in the academic environment, and that there are many factors that lead to sycophantic behavior. In conclusion, organizational sycophancy is a phenomenon intertwined with academic success, cooperation and organizational culture in universities. The role of sycophantic behaviors, the attitudes of academics towards managers and the place of these attitudes in organizational structures is a topic that requires more research in academic circles. In this context, studies on sycophancy in universities provide important information for academic success and improvement of the work environment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ethics
• Organizational Sycophancy
• Academic Sycophancy
• University
• Academician

Kaynakça

1. Agbim, K. C., Ayatse, F. A., & Oriarewo, G. O. (2013). Spirituality, ethical behaviour and ethical business: The impact of relatedness. Journal Of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(9), 76-86.
2. Akbay, S. E., & Delibalta, A. (2020). Academic risk taking behavior in university students: Academic procrastination, academic locus of control, and academic perfectionism. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(89), 159-178.
3. Ayal, O. (2022). Examination of the relationship between organizational flattery and nepotism according to the perceptions of teachers working in primary and secondary schools. Master's Thesis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Institute of Graduate Education, Rize.
4. Ayal, O., & Kahveci, G. (2023). Examining teachers' perceptions of organizational flattery and nepotism. The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, (55), 272-294. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1229993
5. Aydın, İ. (2016). Akademik etik (1. ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786053185154
6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
7. Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. E-Journal of Dokuz Eylul University Nursing Faculty, 9(1), 23-28.
8. Bilgin, N. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde icerik analizi-Teknikler ve ornek calismalar. Ankara: Siyasal Publication House.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507
10. Business NLP Academy. (2019). Organizational flattery -What is organizational flattery? Retrieved 12 02, 2024, from Business NLP Blog: https://www.businessnlpacademy.co.uk/blog/view/organizational_flattery/
11. Chong, D. (2022). The influence of organizational justice and organizational culture on employee loyalty. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science (DIJMS), 4(1), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.31933/dijms.v4i1.1469
12. Council of Higher Education (2018). Ethical conduct principles for higher education institutions. Retrieved 12 08, 2025, from https://personeldb.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/370/2019/12/yuksekogretim-etik-davranis-ilkeleri.pdf
13. Dalton, C. M. (2008). In my opinion. Business Horizons, 51(5), 359-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.03.002
14. Demir, G. (2023). The development and importance of ethical principles in higher education . RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies (34), 403-420. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1316156
15. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
16. Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
17. Erdem, A. R. (2003). An important factor in university culture: Values. Journal of Values Education, 1(4), 55-72.
18. Esmer, Y., & Yüksel, M. (2019). Organizational sycophancy. The Journal of International Social Research, 12(67), 895-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3777
19. Esmer, Y., & Yüksel, M. (2023). Universitelerde etik iklim. In A. Fahri, Akademik etik ve bilim (pp. 291-306). Istanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri.
20. Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300813
21. Geeta, M., Pooja, J., & PN, M. (2016). Ethical behaviour in organizations: A literature review. Journal of Research in Business and Management, 4(1), 1-6.
22. Gönülaçar, Ş. (2022). Etik ilkeler ve ihlaller. Ankara. Retrieved 12 08, 2025, from https://www.academia.edu/9326934/Etik_ilkeler_ve_ihlaller
23. Gül, H. (2006). Etik disi davranislar ve ussallastirilmasi: Devlet hastanelerinde bir uygulama. KMU Journal of Social and Economic Research(1), 65-79.
24. Gül, H., & Gökçe, H. (2008). Organızational ethic and its components. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13(1), 377-389.
25. Gülcemal, M. M. (2020). A qualitative study on the phenomenon of flattery in academic organizations. Ph.D Thesis, Suleyman Demirel University Social Sciences Institute, Isparta.
26. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
27. Kadıoğulları, E., & Ensari, H. (2020). Perception of transparency and autonomy in higher education: an example of foundation universities in Istanbul province. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(1), 410-440. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.628585
28. Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34(5), 978-1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308318614
29. Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710390
30. Kartolo, A.B., & Kwantes, C. T. (2019). Organizational culture, perceived societal and organizational discrimination. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(6), 602–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-10-2018-0191
31. Kaynak, İ. (2020). The effect of organizational culture on institutional image. Journal of Academic Projection, 5(2), 136-148.
32. Kıral, B., & Karaman Kepenekci, Y. (2021). Employee behaviors which destroy organizational climate. Siirt Journal of Education, 1(2), 17-29.
33. Kıral, E., & Dilan Dilmaç, E. (2021). School administrators and teachers opinions about sycophancy behavior. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 104-119.
34. Konay, D., & Kıral, E. (2023). Relationship between political skill and sycophancy. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty (KEFAD), 24(1), 295-335. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1036669
35. Köse , S., Tetik, S., & Ercan , C. (2001). Orgut kulturunu olusturan faktorler. Journal of Management and Economics, 7(1), 219-242.
36. Mengi, A. (2019). Difficulties faced by disabled students during university education: The case of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1), 147-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2019.122
37. Monis, İ., Çalışkan, A., & Köroğlu, E. Ö. (2024). The effect of organizational culture on the openness to change of individuals working in health institutions, the mediating role of ethical climate for behaviors. Journal of Turkish Social Sciences Research, 9(1), 64-83.
38. Okutan, E. (2005). Dalkavukluk: Tarihsel perspektif, siyaset ve basin. Istanbul: Mephisto Publications.
39. Özkalp, E., & Kırel, Ç. (2011). Orgutsel davranis (6th ed.). Bursa: Ekin Publishing House.
40. Özbilgin, M. F., Küçükaltan, B., & Açar, A. (2019). Sycophancy as a factor that corrodes merit in academic life. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(5), 2828-2850. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i5.1361
41. Özdemir, M. (2010). Qualitative data analysis: A study on methodology problem in social sciences. Journal of Social Sciences Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 11(1), 323-343.
42. Özdevecioğlu, M., & Aksoy, M. S. (2005). Sabotage in organizations: Types, goals, targets and management of sabotage. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 6(1), 95-109.
43. Poonam, & Chahal, H. (2019). The behavioural factors of co-workers’ perception: An empirical study of hospitality sector. Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 24, 114-129.
44. Sıvakcı, U. (2016). The effects of knowledge management process and ethical organizational culture on firm innovation: An empirical study. PhD Thesis, Maltepe University Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.
45. Strazovska, L., & Sulikova, R. (2019). The importance of ethical behaviour in a global business environment. Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2019 (pp. 335-341). Düren: Shaker Verlag.
46. Taş, M. A. (2023). Verbal bribery in organizations: Flattery. In G. Kıral, İktisadi ve idari bilimler modern analiz bulgu ve arastirmalar (pp. 83-98). Lyon : Livre de Lyon.
47. Tepe Küçükoğlu , M. (2012). Ethical values and the institutionalization of ethics. Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 177-185.
48. Tonus, H. Z., & Oruç, İ. (2012). Unethical behaviors and their management in human resource management: A content analysis of a company’s personnel regulation. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 5(10), 149-181. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (6. ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.