The Effect of Social Control Perception and Organisation Culture on The Relationship Between Physical Distance of Manager and Cyberloafing: A Moderated Mediation Model

Öz

The aim of this study is to understand the relationship between the physical distance of the manager and the employees and, the perception of the employees regarding social control in their organization, among the disciplinary tools in public institutions where the hierarchy culture is dominant. First of all, the mediating effect of employees' perceptions of social control in their organizations between the physical distance of the manager and cyber loafing was examined. Then, the moderating effect of the hierarchy culture on this relationship were investigated. Moderated mediation analysis was applied to the data collected through questionnaires from 161 computerized personnel in different units of a municipality. As a result of the mediation analysis; employees' perception of social control mediates the relationship between the manager’s physical distance and cyber loafing, but this perception is a suppressive variable that increases cyber loafing. The moderated mediation analysis, on the other hand, showed that the mediating effect of the social control perception between the manager's physical distance and cyber loafing behavior of the employees is stronger in situations where the hierarchical culture is stronger. According to this finding; in cases where the hierarchy culture is strong, the close proximity of the manager to the employees increases the effect on the employees' perception of social control, but this effect does not decrease but increases the cyber loafing behavior. This result shows that social control mechanisms are not as effective as the physical distance of the manager in preventing cyber loafing.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cyberloafing
• Manager’s Physical Distance
• Social Control Perception
• Hierarchy Culture
• Municipality

YÖNETİCİNİN FİZİKSEL MESAFESİ İLE SANAL KAYTARMA ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE SOSYAL KONTROL ALGISI VE KURUM KÜLTÜRÜ ETKİSİ: BİR DÜZENLENMİŞ ARACILIK MODELİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, hiyerarşi kültürünün baskın olduğu kamu kurumlarındaki disiplin araçlarından yöneticinin çalışanlarla arasındaki fiziksel mesafesi ve çalışanların kurumdaki sosyal kontrole ilişkin algısının sanal kaytarma davranışı ile ilişkisini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmada öncelikle çalışanların kurumlarındaki sosyal kontrole dair algılarının, yöneticinin fiziksel mesafesi ile sanal kaytarma davranışı arasındaki aracılık ilişkisi, ardından da hiyerarşi kültürünün bu ilişkideki düzenleyici etkisi incelenmiştir. Bir belediyenin farklı birimlerinde, bilgisayarla çalışan 161 personelden anket yoluyla toplanan verilerle düzenlenmiş aracılık analizi uygulanmıştır. Aracılık analizi sonucunda çalışanların sosyal kontrole ilişkin algısının, yöneticinin fiziksel mesafesi ile sanal kaytarma arasındaki ilişkiye aracılık ettiği, ancak bu algının, sanal kaytarmayı arttıran bastırıcı bir değişken olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Düzenlenmiş aracılık analizi ise yöneticinin fiziksel mesafesinin sosyal kontrol algısı üzerinden sanal kaytamaya olan dolaylı etkisinin, hiyerarşi kültürünün güçlü olduğu durumlarda daha güçlü olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bulguya göre hiyerarşi kültürünün güçlü olduğu durumlarda, yöneticinin çalışanlara yakın mesafede olması, çalışanların sosyal kontrole dair algısı üzerindeki etkisini artırdığı halde bu etki sanal kaytarma davranışını azaltmayıp artırmaktadır. Bu sonuç; sosyal kontrol mekanizmalarının sanal kaytarma davranışını nnnnnnengellemekte yöneticinin fiziksel mesafesi kadar etkili olmadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal kaytarma
• yöneticinin fiziksel mesafesi
• sosyal kontrol algısı
• hiyerarşi kültürü
• belediye

Kaynakça

1. Anandarajan, M., Simmers, C., & Igbaria, M. (2000). An exploratory investigation of the antecedents and impact of Internet usage: An individual perspective. Behaviour &Information Technology, 19(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492900118803
2. Antonakis J., & Atwater l. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8
3. Akyel, R. (2009). Yönetimin kontrol fonksiyonunun uygulanmasındaki güçlükler. Türk İdare Dergisi, 465(3), 11-25.
4. Askew, K., Buckner, J. E., Taing, M. U., Ilie, A., Bauer, J. A., & Coovert, M. D. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing: The role of the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.006
5. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 112-121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298
6. Belasen, A., & Frank, N. (2008). Competing values leadership: Quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership ve Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730810852489
7. Bordua, D. J. (1967). Recent trends: Deviant behavior and social control. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 369(1), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626736900115
8. Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 66-77.

9. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721
10. Bucaktepe, A. (2014). Devlet memurluğu ve memurların değerlendirilmesi üzerine düşünceler. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 459-490.
11. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
12. Chen, J. V., Chen, C. C., & Yang, H. H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of key factors contributing to internet abuse in the workplace. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570810844106
13. Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
14. Clark, A. L., & Gibbs, J. P. (1964). Social control: A reformulation. Soc. Probs.,12, 398. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078338902500204
15. Çöpoğlu, M. (2016). Belediyelerde İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi ve Endüstri İlişkileri. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 10(1), 163-182.
16. Dalgıç D. (2007). Kentsel Karar Alma Süreçlerine Katılım. Yerel Yönetimlerde İş Birliği ve Katılım, T.O.D.A.İ.E. Yayını, Ankara.
17. Deal, T. E, & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life: Addison-Wesley, 1982. ISBN: 0-201-10277-3. Business Horizons, 26(2), 82-85.
18. Devlet Memurları Kanunu [DMK]. (1965). Kanun Numarası: 657. Resmi Gazete Tarihi, 23(07), 1965.
19. Elchardus, M. (2009). Self-control as social control: The emergence of symbolic society. Poetics, 37(2), 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2009.01.001
20. Erençin, A. (2017). Büyükşehir Belediyeleri ve Personel Sorunu: 2006-2016 Dönemi. Yasama Dergisi, 35, 5-25.
21. Franks, T. (1989). Bureaucracy, organization culture and development. Public Administration and Development, 9(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230090403
22. Garrett, R. K, & Danziger, J. N. (2008). On cyberslacking: Workplace status and personal Internet use at work. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11(3), 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0146
23. Gezici, H. S. (2012). Belediyelerde Örgüt Kültürü Araştırması: Selçuklu Belediyesi Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Selçuk Üniversitesi. YÖK tez merkezinden edinilmiştir (325858).
24. Guthrie, R., & Gray, P. (1996). Junk computing: Is it bad for an organization. Information Systems Management, 13(1), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580539608906968
25. Gümüştekin, E. G., & Emet C. (2007). Güçlendirme Algılarındaki Değişimin Örgütsel Kültür ve Bağlılık Üzerinde Etkileşimi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, 90-116.
26. Hayes, A. F. 820189. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
27. Helm, C., & Morelli, M. (1979). Stanley Milgram and the obedience experiment: Authority, legitimacy, and human action. Political Theory, 7(3), 321-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/009059177900700303
28. Hollinger, & Clark (1982). Formal and Informal Social Controls of Employee Deviance. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333-343. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106074
29. Hollingshead, A. B. (1941). The concept of social control. American Sociological Review, 6(2), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085551
30. Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 82-108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777055
31. Karakılıç, N. Y. (2019). Cameron ve Quinn Örgüt Kültürü Ölçeğinin Güvenirlik ve Geçerliğinin Test Edilmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 19-30.
32. Kaya, H. (2008). Kamu ve özel sektör kuruluşlarının örgütsel kültürünün analizi ve kurum kültürünün çalışanların örgütsel bağlılığına etkisi: Görgül bir araştırma. Maliye Dergisi, 155, 119-143.
33. Kim, S. J., & Byrne, S. (2011). Conceptualizing personal web usage in work contexts: A Preliminary framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2271-2283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.006
34. Knights, D., & Willmott, H. C. (1987). Organizational culture as management strategy: A critique and illustration from the financial services industry. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(3), 40-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40397069
35. Lara, Z. M. P., & Olivares‐Mesa, A. (2010). Bringing cyber loafers back on the right track. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110(7), 1038–1053. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011069095
36. Lara, Z. M. P., Verano Tacoronte, D., & Ting Ding, J. M. (2006). Do current anti cyberloafing Disciplinary practices have a replica in research findings? A study of the effects of coercive strategies on workplace Internet misuse. Internet Research, 16(4), 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240610690052
37. Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 795-805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218002
38. Laufer, W. S., & Robertson, D. C. (1997). Corporate ethics initiati&s as social control. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(10), 1029-1047. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017965820673
39. Liberman, B., Seidman, G., Mckenna, K. Y., & Buffardi, L. E. (2011). Employee job Attitudes and organizational characteristics as predictors of cyberloafing. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2192-2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.015
40. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and Organizational justice. Journal of organizational behavior: The international journal of industrial, occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.161
41. Lim, V. K., & Chen, D. J. Q., (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: gain ordrain on Work. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(4), 343-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290903353054
42. Lim, V. K., & Teo, T. S. (2005). Prevalence, perceived seriousness, justification and regulation of cyberloafing in Singapore: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 42(8), 1081-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.12.002 Macdonald, S., Anderson, P., & Kimbel, D. (2000). Measurement or management? Revisiting the productivity paradox of information technology. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 69(4), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.69.4.601
43. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention science, 1(4), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026595011371
44. Marx, G. T. (1981). Ironies of social control: Authorities as contributors to deviance Through escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Social Problems, 28(3), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.2307/800300
45. Maxwell, L., Taner, E., & Jonathan, G. M. (2019). Digitalisation in the Public Sector: Determinant Factors. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance (IJITBAG), 10(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITBAG.2019070103
46. Mehroof, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). Online gaming addiction: the role of sensation seeking, self-control, neuroticism, aggression, state anxiety, and trait anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 313-316. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0229
47. Meier, R. F. (1982). Perspectives on the concept of social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 35-55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945987
48. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
49. Monahan, T. (2008). Surveillance and inequality. Surveillance & Society, 5(3), 217-226. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-64173
50. Napier, B. J. & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3(4), 321-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(93)90004-N
51. O'Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. California Management Review, 31(4), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/411665
52. O'reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 18, 157-200.
53. Pasa, F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organisations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology, 50(4), 559-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00073
54. Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Waldo, G. P. & Chiricos, T. G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review, 457-479. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053589
55. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392363
56. Pindek, S., Krajcevska, A., & Spector, P. E. (2018). Cyberloafing as a coping mechanism: Dealing with workplace boredom. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.040
57. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., ve Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: factor fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(1), 21-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90036-9
58. Rosenblatt, V. (2012). Hierarchies, power inequalities, and organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 237-251. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23324870
59. Schrag, C. (1954). Leadership among prison inmates. American Sociological Review, 19(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088170
60. Sadioğlu, U., & Ömürgönülşen, U. (2011). Yerel yönetim personel sistemlerinde reform çalışmaları: alman ve türk deneyimlerinden yansıyan eğilimler ve Türkiye için çıkarılabilecek bazı dersler. Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1),129-171.
61. Şen, M. L. (2020). Türkiye’de Kamu Personel Rejiminin Sistemsel Sorunları. Strategic Public Management Journal, 6(12), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.25069/spmj.826314
62. Teske, J. A. (2002). Cyberpsychology, human relationships, and our virtual interiors. Zygon, 37(3), 677-700. https://doi.org/10.11111/1467-9744.00445
63. Triandis, H. C., & Triandis, L. M. (1960). Race, social class, religion, and nationality as determinants of social distance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041734
64. Triplett, J. E. (1999). The Solow productivity paradox: what do computers do to productivity? The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique, 32(2), 309-334. https://doi.org/10.2307/136425
65. Turkle, S. (1999). Looking toward cyber space: Beyond grounded sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 643-648.
66. Ugrin, J. C., & Pearson, J. M. (2013). The effects of sanctions and stigmas on cyberloafing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 812-820. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.005
67. Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of management review, 24(2), 266-285. https://doi.org/10.2307/259082
68. Yıldırım, C. (2019). Türkiye’de Belediye Personel Sisteminin Sorunları Üzerine Bir Analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (35), 346-372.
69. Yücel, İ., & Koçak, D. (2016) “Örgüt Kültürü ile Personel Güçlendirme Arasındaki İlişkiye Yönelik Bir Araştırma”, KAÜ İİBF Dergisi, 7(12), 1-24. DOI: 10.9775/kauiibfd.2016.001
70. Weatherbee, T. G. (2010). Counterproductive use of technology at work: Information & communications technologies and cyberdeviancy. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.012