KÜRESEL İŞ GÜCÜNDE PSİKOSOSYAL ÇÖZÜLME: TÜRKİYE VE DÜNYA BAĞLAMINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu çalışma, modern iş gücü piyasasındaki motivasyonel ve psikolojik aşınmayı "psikososyal çözülme" kavramsal çerçevesinde analiz etmektedir. Yorumsamacı paradigma temelinde yürütülen araştırmada, nitel araştırma desenlerinden "tematik ikincil veri analizi" yöntemi benimsenmiştir. Analiz kapsamında, Gallup’un 2025 State of the Global Workplace raporunda yer alan, 160’tan fazla ülkeyi kapsayan ve 2009-2024 dönemine ait yaklaşık 5.5 milyon yanıtı temsil eden geniş ölçekli veriler; İş Talepleri-Kaynakları (JD-R) Modeli, Öz-Belirleme (SDT) ve Sosyal Bağ kuramları aracılığıyla kuramsal üçgenleme tekniğiyle incelenmiştir. Bulgular, küresel ölçekte kurumsal ve varoluşsal bağların zayıfladığını; Türkiye özelinde ise düşük bağlılık (%10) ile dünya ortalamasının çok üzerindeki günlük stres (%69) ve öfke (%40) düzeylerinin yapısal bir ihtiyaç engellenmesine işaret ettiğini göstermektedir. Araştırma, psikososyal çözülmenin bireysel bir refah sorununun ötesinde, örgütsel ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirliği tehdit eden sistemik bir olgu olduğunu vurgulayarak, insan odaklı yeni bir yönetim paradigması önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikososyal çözülme
• Çalışan bağlılığı
• Duygular
• Örgütsel davranış
• İş gücü piyasası

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurum tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma kapsamında insan veya hayvanlar üzerinde herhangi bir deneysel ya da müdahaleye dayalı uygulama gerçekleştirilmemiş, birincil veri toplanmamış ve yalnızca ikincil veri kaynaklarından yararlanılmıştır. Bu nedenle çalışma için etik kurul izni gerekmemektedir. Yazar, araştırma ve yayın etiğine bağlı kalındığını; 6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu’na ve fikir ve sanat eserlerine ilişkin telif hakları düzenlemelerine uyulduğunu beyan etmektedir. Ayrıca, bu çalışma ile ilgili herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmadığını da beyan eder.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma kapsamında teşekkür edilecek herhangi bir kişi veya kurum bulunmamaktadır.

PSYCHOSOCIAL DISINTEGRATION IN THE GLOBAL WORKFORCE: AN ASSESMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF TURKEY AND THE WORLD

Öz

This study analyzes motivational and psychological erosion in the modern labor market within the conceptual framework of psychosocial disintegration. Grounded in the interpretivist paradigm, the research adopts thematic secondary data analysis, a qualitative research design. The analysis draws on large-scale data from the Gallup 2025 State of the Global Workplace report, which covers more than 160 countries and represents approximately 5.5 million responses collected between 2009 and 2024. The dataset was examined through theoretical triangulation, employing the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, Self-Determination Theory, and Social Bond Theory. The findings indicate a global weakening of both institutional and existential bonds. In the case of Türkiye, extremely low employee engagement (10%) combined with daily stress (69%) and anger (40%) levels far above the global average point to structural need frustration. The study argues that psychosocial disintegration extends beyond an individual well-being issue and represents a systemic phenomenon that threatens organizational and economic sustainability. Accordingly, it calls for the development of a new human-centered management paradigm.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychosocial disintegration
• Employee engagement
• Emotions
• Organizational behavior
• Labor market

Destekleyen Kurum

This study was not supported by any institution.

Etik Beyan

No experimental or interventional procedures were conducted on humans or animals, no primary data were collected, and only secondary data sources were used in this study. Therefore, ethics committee approval was not required. The author declare that the study was conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics and in compliance with data protection regulations and copyright laws applicable to intellectual and artistic works. The author also declare that there is no conflict of interest related to this study.

Teşekkür

There are no individuals or institutions to be acknowledged within the scope of this study.

Kaynakça

1. Abrutyn, S. (2019). Toward a general theory of anomie: The social psychology of disintegration. European Journal of Sociology, 60(1), 109-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975619000043
2. Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism. Kim, U., Yang, KS., Hwang, KK. (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology. International and cultural psychology içinde. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28662-4_20
3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
4. Bakker, A. B. ve Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
5. Baumeister, R. F. ve Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
6. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
7. Deci, E. L. ve yan, R. M. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
8. Deci, E. L. ve Ryan, R. M. (2000b). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

9. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
10. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
11. Durkheim, É. (1997). The division of labour in society. Free Press. (Original work published 1893).
12. Durkheim, É. (1897/1997). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Free Press. (Orijinal çalışma 1897).
13. Gallup 2025 Report. (2025). State of the global workplace: Understanding employees, informing leaders.
14. Gewald, J.-B. (1999). Herero heroes: A socio-political history of the Herero of Namibia, 1890-1923. James Currey Publishers.
15. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F. ve Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?. Journal of applied psychology, 93(6), 1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
16. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist.
17. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process. Applied Psychology.
18. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. International Educational and Professional.
19. Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619-626.
20. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
21. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A. ve Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of management annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
22. Knight, C., Patterson, M. ve Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6): 792-812. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/job.2167
23. Mahand, T. ve Caldwell, C. (2023). Quiet quitting–causes and opportunities. Business and Management Research, 12(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v12n1p9
24. Marx, K. (2016). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Routledge.
25. Maslach, C. ve Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
26. Meyer, J. P. ve Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
27. Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C. ve Hmurovic, J. L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.642
28. Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance—and what we can do about it. HarperBusiness.
29. Pincus, J. D. (2023). Employee engagement as human motivation: Implications for theory, methods, and practice. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57(4), 1223-1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09737-w
30. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H. ve Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
31. Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the Job Demands-Resources model: A “how to” guide to measuring and tackling burnout and engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008
32. Schaufeli, W. B. (2013).What is engagement? In C. Truss, R. Delbridge, E. Soane, K. Alfes, & A. Shantz (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). Routledge.
33. Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565
34. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
35. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849664554
36. Tang, P. M., Koopman, J., Mai, K. M., De Cremer, D., Zhang, J. H., Reynders, P., Ng, C. T. S. ve Chen, I-H. (2023). No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(11), 1766–1789. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001103
37. Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H. ve Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands–Resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839
38. Vansteenkiste, M. ve Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359
39. Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J. Ve Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied psychology, 70(1), 16-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
40. World Values Survey. (2020). World Values Survey Wave 7. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org (Erişim Tarihi: 6.01.2026).