Bir Türk Develt Üniversitesinde Örgütsel Birimlerin Güç ve Kaynak Dağılımı ile İlişkisi

Öz

Bir Türk devlet üniversitesinin beş fakültesine bağlı 33 bölümü üzerinde, bölüm gücü ve belirleyicileri ile kaynak dağılımı arasındaki ilişkiler, önerilen bir model aracılığıyla çalışılmıştır. Anket verileri ve yazılı belgelerden elde edilen veriler üzerinde korelasyon ve basamaklandırılmış çoklu regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır. Gücün on kriteri arasından sadece üçü (bölümün bağlı olduğu fakülte, bölümün döner sermaye projelerinin bölüm akademik personeli başına düşen payı ve bölüme bağlı akademik personel sayısı) bölüm gücü ile önemli ölçüde ilintili bulunmuştur. Buna rağmen, bölüm gücü değişkenleri (ün, temsil ve semboller) önerilen güç kriterlerinin çok azıyla oldukça güçlü bir biçimde açıklanabilmiştir. Ancak, kaynak dağılımının regresyon denklemlerinin açıklayıcılığı, bölüm gücü regresyon denklemlerinin açıklayıcılığına erişememiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda araştırmacılar, kaynak dağıtımındaki rollerine dayalı olarak  fakültelerin gücünün de çalışılmasının anlam taşıyacağını belirtmektedirler. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üniversite,güç,örgütsel birim gücü,kaynak dağılımı

ORGANIZATIONAL SUB-UNIT POWER AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN A TURKISH STATE UNIVERSITY

Öz

A model for departmental (sub-unit) power together with its bases and its relationship to resource allocations is tested on 33 departments from 5 faculties of a Turkish State university. Correlation and stepwise multiple regression analyses have been performed on data gathered through questionnaires and also secondary data. From among the ten bases of power, only three (the faculty to which the department belongs, the monetary worth of the projects conducted per academic staff, and the number of academic staff) were found to significantly correlate with departmental power measures. However, all the power measures were highly explained by a few of the proposed power bases, but the resource allocation variables were not strongly explained by the departmental power measures and power bases. Another important statement the researchers of this study make is the relevance of studying faculties as sub-units, because the faculties directly allocate some resources of the university. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• University,power,sub-unit power,resource allocation

Kaynakça

1. Astley, G. W. and P. S. Sachdeva (1984), “Structural Sources of Intraorganizational Power: A Theoretical Synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104-113.
2. Astley, G. W. and E. J. Zajac (1990), “Beyond Dyadic Exchange: Functional Interdependence and Sub-unit Power”, Organization Studies, 11, 481-501.
3. Baldridge, J. V. (1971), Power and Conflict in the University, New York: Wiley.
4. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1963). A Behavior Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
5. Enz, C. A. (1989), “The Measurement of Perceived Intraorganizational Power: A Multi- respondent Perspective”, Organization Studies, 10, 241-251.
6. Ezzamel, M. and M. Bourn (1995), “Budget Allocation in a UK University: Contrasting Periods of Resource Availability with Resource Scarcity”, Journal of Management Studies, 32, 310-338.
7. Fried, B. J. (1989), “Power Acquisition in a Health Care Setting: An Application of Strategic Contingencies Theory”, Human Relations, 41, 915-927.
8. Hackman, J. D. (1985), “Power and Centrality in the Allocation of Resources in Colleges and Universities”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 61-77.

9. Hickson, D. J., C. R. Hinings, C. A. Lee, R. E. Schneck and J. M. Pennings (1971), “A Strategic Contingencies’ Theory of Intraorganizational Power”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-229.
10. Hills, F. S. and T. A. Mahoney (1978), “University Budgets and Organizational Decision Making”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 454-465.
11. Hinings, C. R., D. J. Hickson, J. M. Pennings and R. E. Schneck (1974), “Structural Conditions of Intraorganizational Power”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 22-44.
12. Lodahl, J. B. and G. Gordon (1973), “Funding the Sciences in University Departments”, Educational Records, 54, 74-82.
13. Perrow, C. (1970), “Departmental Power and Perspectives in Industrial Firms”, in N. Z. Mayer (ed.), Power in Organizations, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 59-89.
14. Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik (1974), “Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case of a University Budget”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135-151.
15. Pfeffer, J. G., R. Salancik and H. Leblebici (1976), “The Effect of Uncertainty on the Use of Social Influence in Organizational Decision Making”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 227-245.
16. Pfeffer, J. and Anthony Leong (1977), “Resource Allocations in United Funds; Examination of Power and Dependence”, Social Forces, 55, 775-790.
17. Pfeffer, J. and W. L. Moore (1980), Power in University Budgeting; A Replication and Extension”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 637-653.
18. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.
19. Pondy, L. R. (1970), “Toward a Theory of Internal Resource Allocation”, in N. Z. Mayer (ed.), Power in Organizations, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 270-311.
20. Salancik, G. R. and J. Pfeffer (1974), “The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-473.
21. Tütüncü, İ. C. (1995), Design and Implementation of a Simulation Model for Predicting Resource Requirements of Instructional Activities in METU, Unpublished master’s thesis, Ankara: METU Graduate School of Social Sciences.
22. Wildavsky, A. (1979), The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Boston: Little, Brown.