THE ROLE OF INFORMAL COMMUNICATION WITH ACADEMIC STAFF ON LEADERSHIP CAHARACTERISTICS OF BUSINESS STUDENTS

Yıl 2016, , 89 - 103, 01.08.2016

Ali Murat Alparslan Orhan Sezgin

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.20162922024

Cited By: 1

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between the leadership characteristics of informal communication between business students and academic staff 586 business students from 4 grand state universities in Istanbul participated to research. In study, survey method is performed and confirmatory factor analysis, correlation and regression analyzes was carried on data. According to the findings; socially accessible of academic staff β = 0.10, t = 2.19 , psychological mentoring to students β = 0.47, t = 9.54 increase social communication between student and teaching academic staff. Increased social communication has a positive effect β = 0.42, t = 7.80 on students’ leadership characteristics self-esteem, have an impact on others, taking initiative, self-expression, dominant among others . Additionally, performed mediation analysis; a part of effect of social communication to leadership characteristics could be explained by psychological mentoring

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Accessibility, Mentorship, Informal Communication, Leadership Characteristics

İŞLETME ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN LİDERLİK ÖZELLİKLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÖĞRETİM ELEMANLARI İLE KURULAN İNFORMAL İLETİŞİMİN ROLÜ

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, işletme öğrencilerinin öğretim elemanları ile aralarındaki informal iletişimin liderlik özellikleri ile ilişkisini incelemektir. Araştırmaya, İstanbul’da bulunan 4 köklü devlet üniversitesinden 586 işletme öğrencisi katılmıştır. Veriler üzerinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgulara göre öğretim elemanlarının sosyal erişilebilirliği β=0.10, t=2.19 , ve öğrencilere sağladıkları psikolojik mentörlük β=0.47, t=9.54 öğrenci-öğretim elemanı arasındaki sosyal iletişimi artırmaktadır. Artan sosyal iletişim de öğrencilerin liderlik özelliklerine özgüven, diğerleri üzerinde etkili olma, inisiyatif alma, kendini ifade etme, diğerleri yanında baskın olma olumlu etkide bulunmaktadır β=0.42, t=7.80 . Ayrıca yapılan aracılık testi ile; sosyal iletişimin liderlik özellikleri üzerine etkisinin bir kısmının psikolojik mentörlük ile açıklanabilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal Erişilebilirlik, Mentorlük, İnformal İletişim, Liderlik Özellikleri

Kaynakça

• Adair, J. (2007). Develop your leadership skills. London: Kogan Page Limited.
• Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567–578.
• Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication yearbook, 3, 543-560. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
• Aylor, B., & Oppliger, P. A. (2003). Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication Education, 52, 122-134.
• Bippus, A. M., Brooks, C. F., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (2001). Students’ perceptions of part-time andtenured/tenure-track faculty: Accessibility, mentoring, and extra-class communication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 30, 13–23.
• Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2004). An instructor self-disclosure scale. Communication Research Reports, 21, 252-263.
• Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships throughout of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211-223.
• Frymier, A. B., & Weser, B. (2001). The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education, 50, 314–326.
• Frymier, A., & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219.
• Fusani, D. S. (1994).“Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student-faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(3), 232-255.
• George, B. (2004). Authentic Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & W, F. (2005). “Can You See the Real Me?” A self-based model of Authentic leader and follower development, Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 343–372.
• George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055.
• Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46–62.
• Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan personality inventory manual. Second Edition. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
• House, R. J. & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in organizational behavior: an annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews.1, 341-423.
• Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41-47.
• Kiana D. W., & Frymier A. B. (2007). The relationship between student educational orientation and motives for out-of-class communication. Communication Research Reports, 24(3), 249-256.
• Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter?. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 48-60.
• Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press.
• Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–625.
• Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123-155.
• Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 135–148.
• Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971-990.
• Langton, N. & Robbins, S. P. (2006). Fundamentals of Organizational behavior, Canadian Edition, Canada.
• Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2006). Students’ communication traits and their out-ofclass communication with their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 23, 283-289.
• Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Student’s motives for communication with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155–164.
• McCroskey, J. C., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Payne, S. K. (1989). The impact of communication apprehension on college student retention and success. Communication Quarterly, 37, 100–107.
• Miller, G., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
• Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Knapp, J. L. (2005). Perceived instructor in-class communication behaviors as a predictor of student participation in out-of-class communication. Communication Quarterly, 53, 437–450.
• Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2000). Outside of class communication between faculty and students: A faculty perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 176–188.
• Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2001). The roles of sex, empathy, and credibility in out-of-class communication between faculty and students. Women’s Studies in Communication , 24, 241-261.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1978). Student-faculty informal relationships and freshmen year educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 71, 183-189.
• Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545–595.
• Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2010). Organizational Behavior, 11th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence in learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 149–162.
• Theophilides, C., & Terenzini, P. T. (1981). The relation between nonclassroom contact with faculty and students’ perceptions of instructional quality. Research in Higher Education, 15, 255-269.
• Waldeck, J. H., Orrego, V. O., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1997). Graduate Student/faculty mentoring relationships: Who gets mentored, how it happens, and to what end. Communication Quarterly, 45, 93–109.
• Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1996). Are funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction. Communication Quarterly, 44, 42–52.
• Wilson, R. C., Woods, L., & Gaff, J. G. (1974). Social-psychological accessibility and faculty- student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47, 74-92.
• Zhang, Q. (2006). Immediacy and out-of-class communication: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 33–50.