YENİLİLÇİ İŞ DAVRANIŞI VE ÇALIŞANLARIN ADALET ALGILARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLER ÜZERİNE BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE YAPILAN BİR ÇALIŞMA

Yıl 2005, Sayı: 32, 167 - 184, 22.12.2011

Adnan Ceylan Soner Özbal

Öz

Günümüzde teknolojinin hizli gelisimi, örgütlerin stratejilerini de önemli derecede
etkilemistir. Teknolojik gelismelere paralel olarak örgütlerin gelismeye açik olmalari
zorunluluk haline gelmistir. Bu gelismeler dogrultusunda örgütte yer alan bireylerin
davranislarinda da önemli degisiklikler gözlenmektedir. Bu degisikliklerden biri de
isyerindeki yenilikçi is davranisinin ortaya çikmasidir.Örgütlerin önem vermesi gereken bir
diger konu ise çalisanlarin adalet algilamalaridir. Çalisanlar örgüt iç inde görevlerini yerine
getirirken karsiliginda bazi beklentilerin gerçeklestirilmesini isterler. Çalisanlarin
beklentilerinin, yani çaba-ödül beklentileri, örgüt tarafindan karsilanirken adaletli
davranilmasi, çalisanlar açisindan dikkat edilen bir konudur. Adaletli davranilmasi birey
açisindan ne kadar önemliyse, örgüt veya grup tarafindan da ayni derecede önem
tasimaktadir. Adalet algilari tatmin edilen çalisanlar, agir isyükünün üstesinden gelmek için
daha istekli hale gelmektedirler. Böylece isyerindeki sorunlari çözmeye ve yenilikç i is
davranislarinda bulunmaya istekli olmaktadirlar.Bu düsünceler isiginda yapilan arastirma
asagida sunulmustur. Arastirmanin ilk bölümünde literatürde bulunan adalet algilari ve
yenilikç i is davranisi ile ilgili çalisma ve bulgulara yer verilmistir. Ikinc i bölümde ise
arastirmanin metodolojisi üzerinde durulmustur. Sonuç bölümünde ise arastirmanin sonuçlari
ve tartismalar yer almaktadir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilikçi Is Davranisi, Dagitimsal Adalet Algilari, Prosedürel Adalet Algilari, Esitlik Teorisi.

Kaynakça

• Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in Social Exchange: In Advances”, In Experimental Psychology, Vol.2, edited by L. Berkowitz, 267-299, New York, NY: Academic Pres
• Alexander, S. ve Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior”, Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198
• Bies,R. (1985), ”Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting”, Paper presented as part of the symposium “Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in organizations”, at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
• Bies, R. J. ve Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness”, In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & b.h. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiatiton in Organizations, Vol. 1:43-55, Greenwich, CT:JAI Pres.
• Bies, R.J. ve Shapiro, D.L. (1988), “Voice and justification: The influence on procedural fairness judgements”, Academy of Management Journal, 31:676-685.
• Brockner, J.,Grover, S., Read, T. Ve DeWitt, R.L. (1992), “Layoffs, job insecurity and survivors: work effort: Evidence of an inverted of an inverted-U relationship”, Academy of Management Journal. 35:413-425.
• Brockner. J., Wiesenfeld. B.M. (1996), “An integravite framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effect of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, 120:189-208.
• Bunce, D ve West, M. (1994), “Changing work environments: Innovating coping responses to occupation stress”, Work and Stress, 8, 319-331.
• Folger, R. (1986), “Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model”, In H.W. Bierhoff, R.L. Cohen & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in Social Relations: 145-162, New York: Plenum.
• Folger,R. ve Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, 32,115-130. · organizational justice perspective”, Academy of Management Review, 18 (4):694-734.
• Gilliland, S.W. (1994), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:691- 701
• Greenberg J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 712:340-342.
• Greenberg, J. (1990a), “Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111- 157.
• Greenberg, J. (1990b), “Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow”, Journal of Management, 16 (2): 399-432. Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: Inte rpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Injustice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness”, In Human Resources Management, edited by R. Cropanzano, 79-103, Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• James K. Ve Cropanzano, R. ( 1990), “Focus of attention and locus of control as moderators of fraternal justice effects”, Social Justice Research, 4 : 169-185.
• Jannsen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302, the British Psychological Society.
• Kanter,R. (1998), “When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations”, In B.M.Staw ve L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol.10, pp. 169- 211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Konovsky, M.A. ve Cropanzano, R. (1991), “The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 698-707.
• Konovsky. M.A. ve Pugh. D.D. (1994), “Citizenship and social exchange”, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
• Lee, J. (2001), “Leader-member Exchange, perceived organizational justice and cooperative commuta
• Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? In Social Exchange: Advances in theory and research”, edited by K.J. Gergen,
• M.S. Greenberg and R.H. Wills, 27-55, New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lind, E.A. ve Tyler, T. (1998) “The social Psychology of Procedural Justice”, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
• Lind E.A., Kanter, R. ve Early, P.C. (1990), “Voice, control and procedural justice: Instrumental ve non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5): 952-959.
• Lind, E.A. ve Lissak, R.L.(1985), “Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness jugdements”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21: 19- 29.
• Lind, E.A., Kray, L. ve Thompson, L. (1998), “The social contruction of injustice: Fairness judgements in response to own and others’ infair treatment by authorities”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75: 1-22.
• Lindquist. T.M. (1995), “Fairness as an antecedent to participative budgeting: Examining the effects of distributive justice, procedural justice and referent cognitions of satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7 (Fall): 122-147.
• Locke, E.A. ve Latham, G.P. (1990), “A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Mc Farlin, D.B. ve Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction wiyh personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of Management journal, 35,I 626-637.
• Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 8745-855.
• Moorman, R.H. Blakely, G.L. ve Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357.
• Naumann, S.E. ve Bennett, N. (2000), “A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of multilevel model”, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-889.
• ·Niehoff, B.P. ve Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management journal, 36: 527-556.
• Oldham, G.R. ve Cummings. A. (1996), “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work”, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
• Scminke, M., Ambrose, M.L. ve Noel, T.W, (1997), “The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice”, Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1190-207.
• Scott, S.G. ve Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovation behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the work place”, Academy of Management Journal, 37,580-607.
• Thibaut, J. ve Walker, L. (1975), “Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis”, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Trevino, L.K. (1992), “The social effect of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective”, Academy of Management Review, 17: 647-676.
• Tyler, T.R. ve Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.25: 115-191, San Diego: Academic Press.
• Wentzel, K. (2002), “The influence of fairness perceptions and goal commitment on managers’ performance in a budget setting”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 14, 247-271.
• West, M.A. ve Farr, J.L. (1989), “Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives”, Social Behavior, 4, 15-30.
• Williams, S., Pitre, R. ve Zainuba, M. (2002), “Justice and citizenship behavior intensions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (1): 33-44.
• Woodman, R.W. Sawyer, J.E. ve Griffin, R.W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizational creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, 18, 293-321. ·