BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3, 58 - 71, 01.09.2015

Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla Bal

Öz

Self-regulation is a recently popular concept in industrial-organizational psychology and holds great potential for this field for various reasons (Vancouver and Day, 2005). Given the search for more autonomous practices and entrepreneurial approaches on the side of organizations instead of bureaucracy, hierarchy and autonomous leadership, self-regulation presents an approach that is in line with the current demands of the modern workplace. Recently, studies regarding self-regulation have become of significance in various fields of psychology. Research carried out in previous years has shown that; in applied psychology, education, public health and industry, goal-oriented behavior is of crucial importance for individual and group well-being (Boekaerts, MaesandKaroly, 2005). The aim of this paper is to define the concept of self-regulation, refer to its organizational consequences and draw attention to closely related concepts. In addition, suggestions for future research regarding this concept will also be shared.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Goal-setting theory feedback personal initiative self-management emotional status

Kaynakça

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122– 147.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
  • Bandura, A. ve Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goals revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
  • Bandura, A. (2005). The Primacy of Self-Regulation in Health Promotion. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 245-254.
  • Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 154–178.
  • Boekaerts, M., Maes, S. ve Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across domains of applied psychology: Is there an emerging consensus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 149-154.
  • Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., Smith, R.E. ve Fiori, M. (2006). Self-regulation: Reminders and suggestions from personality science. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 333-385.
  • Frese, M. ve Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative (PI): The theoretical concept and empirical findings. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, p. 133-187). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
  • Frese, M., Garst, H. ve Fay, D. (2000). Control and complexity in work and the development of personal initiative (PI): A four-wave longitudinal structural equation model of occupational socialization. Giessen, Germany: University of Giessen.
  • Godat, L. M. ve Brigham, T. A. (1999). The effect of self-management training on employees of a mid-sized organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 65-83.
  • Gray, J. (1998). False dawn: The delusions of global capitalism. New York: The New Press.
  • Ilies, R. ve Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal Regulation Across Time: The Effects of Feedback and Affect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453-467.
  • Kanfer, R. (2005). Self-regulation research in work and I/O psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 186-191.
  • Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review (14), 150-172.
  • Kluger, A.N. ve DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin , 119 , 254–284.
  • Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: action versus state orientation, self-discrimination and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 97-129.
  • Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting, Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 126-129.
  • Latham, G.P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Locke, E.A. ve Latham, G.P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six
  • recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review,29, 388–403.
  • Markus, H. ve Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–959.
  • Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Powers, W. T. (1991). Comment on Bandura’s “human agency.” American Psychologist, 46,151– 153.
  • Pritchard, R. D., Paquin, A. R., DeCuir, A. D., McCormick, M. J. ve Bly, P. R. ( 2002). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: An overview of ProMES, The ProductivityMeasurement and EnhancementSystem. In R. D.Pritchard, H.Holling, F.Lammers, & B. D.Clark ( Eds.), Improving organizational performance with the ProductivityMeasurementand EnhancementSystem: An international collaboration (pp. 3– 50). Huntington, NY: Nova Science
  • Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.231-235). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Shoda, Y. ve LeeTiernan, S. (2002). What remains invariant? Finding order within a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 241–270). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Vancouver, J.B. ve Day, D.V. (2005). Industrial and organization research on self-regulation:From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 155–185.
  • Winters, D. ve Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21: 236–250.
  • Wood, R. E. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation research in I/O psychology: Applied Psychology: An International review, 54, 192-198.

DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3, 58 - 71, 01.09.2015

Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla Bal

Öz

Öz-denetim, endüstri-örgüt psikolojisinde güncel olarak popüler bir kavramdır ve pek çok nedenle bu alan için büyük bir potansiyel taşımaktadır (Vancouver ve Day, 2005).Örgütlerdeki bürokrasi, hiyerarşik yapı ve otoriter liderlik stillerini daha otonom uygulamalar ve girişimci yaklaşımlarla değiştirme arayışının da etkisiyle, öz-denetim teorisi modern örgütlerin yeni oluşan talepleriyle uyumlu bir yaklaşım içermektedir. Günümüzde öz-denetim ile ilgili araştırmalar psikolojinin pek çok alanında önem teşkil eder hale gelmiştir. Geçtiğimiz yıllarda yapılan araştırmalarda; uygulamalı psikoloji, eğitim, halk sağlığı ve endüstri alanlarında hedef-odaklı davranışların birey ve grupların esenliği için büyük önem teşkil ettiği ortaya konmuştur (Boekaerts, Maes ve Karoly, 2005). Bu çalışmanın amacı; öz-denetim kavramını tanımlayarak, onunla yakından ilişkili kavramlara dikkat çekmek ve öz-denetimin örgütsel sonuçlarına değinerek gelecek çalışmalar için araştırmacılara öneriler sunmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hedef belirleme teorisi geribildirim kişisel insitatif öz-yönetim duygu durumu

Kaynakça

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122– 147.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
  • Bandura, A. ve Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goals revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
  • Bandura, A. (2005). The Primacy of Self-Regulation in Health Promotion. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 245-254.
  • Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 154–178.
  • Boekaerts, M., Maes, S. ve Karoly, P. (2005). Self-regulation across domains of applied psychology: Is there an emerging consensus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 149-154.
  • Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., Smith, R.E. ve Fiori, M. (2006). Self-regulation: Reminders and suggestions from personality science. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 333-385.
  • Frese, M. ve Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative (PI): The theoretical concept and empirical findings. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, p. 133-187). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
  • Frese, M., Garst, H. ve Fay, D. (2000). Control and complexity in work and the development of personal initiative (PI): A four-wave longitudinal structural equation model of occupational socialization. Giessen, Germany: University of Giessen.
  • Godat, L. M. ve Brigham, T. A. (1999). The effect of self-management training on employees of a mid-sized organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 65-83.
  • Gray, J. (1998). False dawn: The delusions of global capitalism. New York: The New Press.
  • Ilies, R. ve Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal Regulation Across Time: The Effects of Feedback and Affect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453-467.
  • Kanfer, R. (2005). Self-regulation research in work and I/O psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 186-191.
  • Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review (14), 150-172.
  • Kluger, A.N. ve DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:A historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin , 119 , 254–284.
  • Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: action versus state orientation, self-discrimination and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 97-129.
  • Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting, Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 126-129.
  • Latham, G.P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Locke, E.A. ve Latham, G.P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six
  • recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review,29, 388–403.
  • Markus, H. ve Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–959.
  • Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Powers, W. T. (1991). Comment on Bandura’s “human agency.” American Psychologist, 46,151– 153.
  • Pritchard, R. D., Paquin, A. R., DeCuir, A. D., McCormick, M. J. ve Bly, P. R. ( 2002). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: An overview of ProMES, The ProductivityMeasurement and EnhancementSystem. In R. D.Pritchard, H.Holling, F.Lammers, & B. D.Clark ( Eds.), Improving organizational performance with the ProductivityMeasurementand EnhancementSystem: An international collaboration (pp. 3– 50). Huntington, NY: Nova Science
  • Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.231-235). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Shoda, Y. ve LeeTiernan, S. (2002). What remains invariant? Finding order within a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 241–270). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  • Vancouver, J.B. ve Day, D.V. (2005). Industrial and organization research on self-regulation:From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 155–185.
  • Winters, D. ve Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21: 236–250.
  • Wood, R. E. (2005). New frontiers for self-regulation research in I/O psychology: Applied Psychology: An International review, 54, 192-198.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA22VG72ZP
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla Bal Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Eylül 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Bal, Y. D. D. E. A. (2015). DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 17(3), 58-71.
AMA Bal YDDEA. DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ. isguc. Eylül 2015;17(3):58-71.
Chicago Bal, Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla. “DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 17, sy. 3 (Eylül 2015): 58-71.
EndNote Bal YDDEA (01 Eylül 2015) DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 17 3 58–71.
IEEE Y. D. D. E. A. Bal, “DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ”, isguc, c. 17, sy. 3, ss. 58–71, 2015.
ISNAD Bal, Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla. “DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources 17/3 (Eylül 2015), 58-71.
JAMA Bal YDDEA. DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ. isguc. 2015;17:58–71.
MLA Bal, Yard. Doç. Dr. Esra Atilla. “DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ”. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, c. 17, sy. 3, 2015, ss. 58-71.
Vancouver Bal YDDEA. DEĞİŞEN İŞ ORTAMINDA BİREYE AİT DİNAMİKLER: ÖZ-DENETİM’İN ROLÜ. isguc. 2015;17(3):58-71.