Kamu Çalışanlarında Yıkıcı Liderlik Davranışının Örgütsel Sinizm Üzerindeki Etkisi: Ankara Örneği

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 11 - 23, 28.06.2022

Mustafa Koçak Alper Bahadır Dalmış

Öz

Kamu kurumları işlevleri açısından ülkelerin ekonomisine hem katkı sağlamak- ta hem de giderleri açısından yük oluşturabilmektedir. Kamu kurumlarının verimliliği ülke ekonomisi açısından önem taşımaktadır. Kişiler arası iletişimin günümüz örgütlerinin verimliliği üzerindeki etkisi göz ardı edilemeyecek kadar büyüktür. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmada kamu çalışanlarında yıkıcı liderlik davranışının örgütsel sin- izm üzerindeki etkisini araştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini Ankara’da bulunan bir kamu kurumunda çalışan 148 çalışan oluşturmaktadır. Yönetici olmayan çalışanlardan oluşan evrenden 142 çalışan çalışmaya katılmış, 3 anket verisinin ek- sikliği nedeniyle çalışma dışı bırakılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklem büyüklüğü 139 olar- ak belirlenmiştir. 139 çalışanın anket verileri kullanılarak yıkıcı liderlik davranışının örgütsel sinizm üzerindeki etkisini ölçmek amacıyla “Yıkıcı Liderlik Ölçeği” ve “Örgütsel Sinizm Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda yıkıcı liderlik ve örgütsel sinizm arasında pozitif yönde ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişki tespit edilmiştir (r=0,619) (p=0,000). Ayrıca yıkıcı liderliğin örgütsel sinizmi pozitif yönde anlamlı olarak etkilediği belirlenmiştir (β=0,619, F=164,689, p<.001). Belirlenen sonuçlar çalışmanın hipotezlerini doğrulamıştır. Örgütlerin verimliliği açısından kişil- erarası ilişkiler önem taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle yıkıcı liderlik ve örgütsel sinizm eğilim- lerini önlemeye yönelik girişimlerde bulunulması önerilmektedir. Ayrıca çalışmanın kısıtlılıkları nedeniyle gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalarda yaş, cinsiyet ve çalışma süre- si gibi demografik faktörlerin eklenmesiyle daha kapsamlı sonuçların elde edilmesi mümkün olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yıkıcı Liderlik, Örgütsel Sinizm, Kamu Çalışanları

The Effect Of Disruptive Leadership Behavior In Civil Servants On Organizational Cynicism: The Case Of Ankara

Öz

In terms of their functions, public institutions both contribute to the economy of countries and create a burden in terms of their expenses. The efficiency of public institutions is important for the country’s economy. The impact of interpersonal communication on the productivity of today’s organizations is too great to be ignored. In this context, in this study, it is aimed to investigate the effect of destructive leadership behavior on organizational cynicism in public employees. The population of the research consists of 148 employees working in a public institution in Ankara. 142 employees from the population consisting of non-managerial employees participated in the study,and 3 were excluded due to the lack of survey data. The sample size of the study was determined as 139. “Destructive Leadership Scale” and “Organizational Cynicism Scale” were used to measure the effect of disruptive leadership behavior on organizational cynicism by using the survey data of 139 employees. In line with the findings, a positive and statistically significant relationship was found between destructive leadership and organizational cynicism (r=0.619) (p=0.000). In addition, it was determined that destructive leadership had a significant positive effect on organizational cynicism (β=0.619, F=164,689, p<.001). The determined results confirmed the hypotheses of the study. Interpersonal relationships are important for the efficiency of organizations. For this reason, it is recommended to take initiatives to prevent destructive leadership and organizational cynicism tendencies. In addition, due to the limitations of the study, it will be possible to obtain more comprehensive results by adding demographic factors such as age, gender and working time in future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Disruptive Leadership, Organizational Cynicism, Civil Servants

Kaynakça

• Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violati- on framework. Human relations, 49(11), 1395-1418.
• Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Indust- rial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(5), 449-469.
• Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The Internatio- nal Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavi- or, 26(7), 733-753.
• Brandebo, M. F., Nilsson, S., & Larsson, G. (2016). Leadership: is bad stronger than good?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,37(6), 690-710.
• Brandes, P, Dharwadkar, R. and Dean, J. W., (1999), Does Organizational Cynicism Mat- ter? Employee and Supervisor Perspectives on Work Outcomes. Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings, 150-153. Outstanding Empirical Paper Award.
• Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psycho- logy, 91(6), 1189.
• Chemers, M. (1997), An Integrative Theory of Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Publis- hers, Mahwah, NJ.
• Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Per- ceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of organizational behavior, 15(5), 439-452.
• Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cyni- cism: An attributional and leader–member exchange perspective. The leadership quarterly, 15(4), 439-465.
• Dean Jr, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Aca- demy of Management review, 23(2), 341-352.
• Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The leadership quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
• Hogan, R. (2009). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. IŞIK, Ö. G. (2014). Organizational cynicism a study among advertising agencies. Akde- niz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, (22), 130-151.
• James, M. S. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organizations: An exami- nation of the potential positive and negative effects on school systems. The Florida State University.
• Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leader- ship and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psycho- logical contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 732.
• Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizati- ons. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96.
• Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion. Jossey-Bass.
• Karacaoğlu, K., & İnce, F. (2012). Brandes, Dharwadkar ve Dean’in (1999) örgütsel sinizm ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması: Kayseri or- ganize sanayi bölgesi örneği. Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and victims, 9(4), 341-357.
• Kiyani, A. S., Atasever, M., & Rizvi, T. H. (2021). Impact of exploitative leadership on workplace incivility: role of psychological distress-evidence from banking sec- tor. NICE Research Journal, 131-149.
• Larsson, G., Brandebo, M. F., & Nilsson, S. (2012). Destrudo-L: Development of a short scale designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military con- text. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(4), 383-400.
• Lipman-Blumen, J. (2010). Toxic leadership: A conceptual framework. In Handbook of top management teams (pp. 214-220). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
• Mete, Y. A. (2013). Relationship between organizational cynicism and ethical leaders- hip behaviour: A study at higher education. Procedia-Social and behavioral scien- ces, 89, 476-483.
• Neves, P. (2012). Organizational cynicism: Spillover effects on supervisor–subordinate relationships and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 965-976.
• Perry, C. (2015). The dark traits of sociopathic leaders: Could they be a threat to uni- versities? Australian Universities Review, 57(1), 17-25.
• Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior mili- tary officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 5-18.
• Sezici, E. (2016). İzleyicilerin Yıkıcı Liderlik Algısı ve Sonuçları. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Science/Dumlupinar Üniversitesi Soysyal Bilimler Dergisi(47).
• Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 575-590.
• Sperry, L. (2003). Handbook of diagnosis and treatment of dsm-ıv-tr personality disor- ders. New York:Brunner-Routledge.
• Stein, M. (2013). When does narcissistic leadership become problematic? Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 282-293. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management jour- nal, 43(2), 178-190.
• Terzi, A. R., & Derin, R. (2016). Relation between Democratic Leadership and Organi- zational Cynicism. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 193-204.
• Uymaz, A. (2013). Yıkıcı Liderlik Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İş- letme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 24(75), 37-57.
• Wang, Z., Cui, T., & Cai, S. (2021). How and when team reflexivity influences emplo- yee innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(1). https://doi. org/10.1108/JMP-11-2020-0590
• Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Ma- nagement, 25(2), 132-153.