BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

MUHASEBEDE HATA YÖNETİMİ VE İŞ PERFORMANSI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN GÖREV KARMAŞIKLIĞI BAĞLAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 55, 141 - 160, 01.10.2018

Öz

Hata yönetim yaklaşımlarının iş performansına olan etkisinin görev karmaşıklığı bağlamında tespit edilmesi ve sonuçların değerlendirilmesi bu çalışmanın amacını oluşturmaktadır. Muhasebe iş ve görevlerinin zorluklar içermesi, muhasebecilerin mekanik veya kavramsal nitelikli hatalar yapmasına neden olur. Muhasebe hataları işletme için idari veya yasal birçok soruna neden olabileceği gibi hatalardan öğrenme ve kurum içi iletişimin artması gibi olumlu etkileri de vardır. Muhasebe hatalarının işletme için risk kaynağı oluşturmakla birlikte sorunlar için bir çözüm aracı haline gelmesi organizasyonda uygulanan hata yönetim yaklaşımı ile ilgilidir. Esnek hata yönetim anlayışı ve önleyici hata yönetim anlayışlarının bu bağlamda hata davranışına ve muhasebecinin iş performansına etkisi mevcuttur. Hata yönetim anlayışının doğru uygulanması hataların tekrar edilme sıklığını azaltarak muhasebecinin görev başarısını etkilemekte ve iş performansını yükseltmektedir. Hataların yapılmasında görevin karmaşıklık düzeyi de etkilidir. Çalışmada yapılan uygulamalı ampirik analize göre esnek hata yönetim anlayışı muhasebecilerin iş performanslarını olumlu olarak değiştirmekte ve etkilemektedir. Bununla birlikte hata yönetim kültürünün iş performansı üzerindeki etkisi yapılan görevin karmaşıklığı artıkça azalma göstermektedir. Esnek hata yönetim teknikleri caydırıcı hata yönetim anlayışına göre daha kullanışlı olduğu bulgularca desteklenmektedir

Kaynakça

  • Abdolmohammadi, M. J. ve Wright, A. (1987). An Examination Of The Effects Of Experience And Task Complexity And Audit Judgments. The Accounting Review, 3, 1–13.
  • Borman, W.C. ve Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task Performance And Contextual Performance: The Meaning For Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
  • Canman, D. (2000). Çağdaş Personel Yönetimi.Ankara, TODAİE Yayını.
  • Cannon, M. D. ve Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing To Learn And Learning To Fail (Intelligently): How Great Organizations Put Failure To Work To Innovate And Improve. Long Range Planning, 38(3), 299-319.
  • Chang, C. J, Ho, J. L. Y., ve Liao, W. M. (1997). The Effects of Justification, Task Complexity And Experience/ Training On Problem-Solving Performance. Behavioural Research in Accounting, Supplement Conference Papers, 9, 98–116.
  • Chung, J. Ve Monroe, G. S. (2001). A Research Note On The Effects Of Gender And Task Complexity On An Audit Judgment. Behavioural Research in Accounting, 13, 111-125.
  • Eren, S. ve Hayatoğlu, Ö. (2011). Etik İkliminin Satış Elemanlarının İş Tutumlarına ve İş Performanslarına Etkisi: İlaç Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(14), 109-128.
  • Farth, J., Dobbin, G. ve Cheng, B. (1991). Cultural Relativity In Action: A Comparison Of Self-Ratings Made By Chinese And US Workers. Personnel Psychology, 44, 129-147
  • Frese, M. ve Keith, N. (2015). Action Errors, Error Management, And Learning In Organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 661-687.
  • Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. ve Shapira, Z. (1999). In (Eds.). Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Gold, A., Gronewold, U. ve Salterio, S. E. (2014). Error management In Audit Firms:Error Climate, Type, And Originator. The Accounting Review, 89(1), 303-330.
  • Goodman, P. S., Ramanujam, R., Carroll, J. S., Edmondson, A. C., Hofmann, D. A. ve Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011).
  • Organizational Errors: Directions For Future Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 151-176.
  • Gronewold, U. ve Donle, M. (2011). Organizational Error Climate And Auditors’ Predispositions Toward Handling Errors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(2), 69-92.
  • Gronewold, U., Gold, A., ve Salterio, S. E. (2013). Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate And Error Type. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 189-208.
  • Hofmann, D. A. ve Frese, M. (2011). Errors in organizations. New York,Routledge.
  • Iskandar, T.M. ve Sanusi, Z.M. (2011). Assessing The Effects Of Self-Efficacy And Task Complexity On Internal Control Audit Judgment, Asian Academy Of Management Journal Of Accounting And Finance, 7 (1), 29–52.
  • Keith, N. ve Frese, M. (2010). Enhancing Firm Performance And Innovativeness Through Error Management Culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook Of Organizational Culture And Climate (Vol. 2, 137-157). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  • Libby, R. (1985). Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review, Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (2), 648—667. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety And Learning Behavior In Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
  • Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E. ve Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The Influence Of Shared Mental Models On Team Process And Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
  • Suliman, A. (2001).Work Performance: Is It One Thing Or Many Things? The Multidimensionality Of Performance In A Middle Eastern Context, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 1049-1061.
  • Pugh, D. (1991). Organizational Behaviour. London, Prentice Hall Interneational. Rybowiak, V., Garst, H., Frese, M., ve Batinic, B. (1999). Error Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ): Reliability, Validity, And Different Language Equivalence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 527–547.
  • Seckler, C., Gronewold, U. ve Reihlen, M. (2017). An Error Management Perspective On Audit Quality: Toward A Multilevel Model. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 62, 21-42.
  • Şehitoğlu Y. ve C. Zehir (2010). Türk Kamu Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Performansının, Çalışan Sessizliği ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 43(4),87-110.
  • Tan, H., Ng, B. P. ve Mak, W. Y. (2002). The Effects Of Task Complexity On Auditors’ Performance: The Impact Of Accountability And Knowledge. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 21, 81-95.
  • Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M. ve Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational Error Management Culture And Its Impact On Performance: A Two-Study Replication, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228-1240.
  • Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational Commitment: A Mediator Of The Relationships Of Leadership Behavior With Job Satisfaction And Performance In A Non-Western Country, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6-24.
  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. ve Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing For High Reliability: Processes Of Collective Mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 23-81.
  • Wood, R. (1986). Task complexity: Definition Of The Construct. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37(February), 60–82.

Assessment Of The Relationship Between Error Management And Job Performance In The Accounting In The Context of Task Complexity

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 55, 141 - 160, 01.10.2018

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine and assess the effect of error management approaches on job performance in terms of task complexity of accounting. The complexity of acounting tasks is the cause of mechanical or conceptual errors made by accountants. While accounting errors can lead to administrative and/or legal problems for firms ,they may have some positive side effects such as learning from errors and increasing internal communication. Error management approach applied in the organization may be a source of solution to the occurrence of accounting errors. Resilience error management and preventive error management approaches have an impact on error behavior and accountant’s job performance in this context. Correct implementation of error management reduces the frequency of mistakes, improves the job performance of accountants. Findings of the empirical analysis in this study indicates that resilence error management approach positively affects job performance. The complexity of the job being performed limits the success of the error management approach. The findings of this study support the application of resielence error management techniques rather than preventive error management techniques

Kaynakça

  • Abdolmohammadi, M. J. ve Wright, A. (1987). An Examination Of The Effects Of Experience And Task Complexity And Audit Judgments. The Accounting Review, 3, 1–13.
  • Borman, W.C. ve Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task Performance And Contextual Performance: The Meaning For Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
  • Canman, D. (2000). Çağdaş Personel Yönetimi.Ankara, TODAİE Yayını.
  • Cannon, M. D. ve Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing To Learn And Learning To Fail (Intelligently): How Great Organizations Put Failure To Work To Innovate And Improve. Long Range Planning, 38(3), 299-319.
  • Chang, C. J, Ho, J. L. Y., ve Liao, W. M. (1997). The Effects of Justification, Task Complexity And Experience/ Training On Problem-Solving Performance. Behavioural Research in Accounting, Supplement Conference Papers, 9, 98–116.
  • Chung, J. Ve Monroe, G. S. (2001). A Research Note On The Effects Of Gender And Task Complexity On An Audit Judgment. Behavioural Research in Accounting, 13, 111-125.
  • Eren, S. ve Hayatoğlu, Ö. (2011). Etik İkliminin Satış Elemanlarının İş Tutumlarına ve İş Performanslarına Etkisi: İlaç Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(14), 109-128.
  • Farth, J., Dobbin, G. ve Cheng, B. (1991). Cultural Relativity In Action: A Comparison Of Self-Ratings Made By Chinese And US Workers. Personnel Psychology, 44, 129-147
  • Frese, M. ve Keith, N. (2015). Action Errors, Error Management, And Learning In Organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 661-687.
  • Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. ve Shapira, Z. (1999). In (Eds.). Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Gold, A., Gronewold, U. ve Salterio, S. E. (2014). Error management In Audit Firms:Error Climate, Type, And Originator. The Accounting Review, 89(1), 303-330.
  • Goodman, P. S., Ramanujam, R., Carroll, J. S., Edmondson, A. C., Hofmann, D. A. ve Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011).
  • Organizational Errors: Directions For Future Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 151-176.
  • Gronewold, U. ve Donle, M. (2011). Organizational Error Climate And Auditors’ Predispositions Toward Handling Errors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(2), 69-92.
  • Gronewold, U., Gold, A., ve Salterio, S. E. (2013). Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate And Error Type. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 189-208.
  • Hofmann, D. A. ve Frese, M. (2011). Errors in organizations. New York,Routledge.
  • Iskandar, T.M. ve Sanusi, Z.M. (2011). Assessing The Effects Of Self-Efficacy And Task Complexity On Internal Control Audit Judgment, Asian Academy Of Management Journal Of Accounting And Finance, 7 (1), 29–52.
  • Keith, N. ve Frese, M. (2010). Enhancing Firm Performance And Innovativeness Through Error Management Culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook Of Organizational Culture And Climate (Vol. 2, 137-157). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  • Libby, R. (1985). Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review, Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (2), 648—667. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety And Learning Behavior In Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
  • Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E. ve Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The Influence Of Shared Mental Models On Team Process And Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
  • Suliman, A. (2001).Work Performance: Is It One Thing Or Many Things? The Multidimensionality Of Performance In A Middle Eastern Context, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 1049-1061.
  • Pugh, D. (1991). Organizational Behaviour. London, Prentice Hall Interneational. Rybowiak, V., Garst, H., Frese, M., ve Batinic, B. (1999). Error Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ): Reliability, Validity, And Different Language Equivalence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 527–547.
  • Seckler, C., Gronewold, U. ve Reihlen, M. (2017). An Error Management Perspective On Audit Quality: Toward A Multilevel Model. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 62, 21-42.
  • Şehitoğlu Y. ve C. Zehir (2010). Türk Kamu Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Performansının, Çalışan Sessizliği ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 43(4),87-110.
  • Tan, H., Ng, B. P. ve Mak, W. Y. (2002). The Effects Of Task Complexity On Auditors’ Performance: The Impact Of Accountability And Knowledge. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 21, 81-95.
  • Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M. ve Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational Error Management Culture And Its Impact On Performance: A Two-Study Replication, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228-1240.
  • Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational Commitment: A Mediator Of The Relationships Of Leadership Behavior With Job Satisfaction And Performance In A Non-Western Country, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6-24.
  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. ve Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing For High Reliability: Processes Of Collective Mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 23-81.
  • Wood, R. (1986). Task complexity: Definition Of The Construct. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37(February), 60–82.
Toplam 29 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Metin Uyar Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ekim 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 55

Kaynak Göster

APA Uyar, M. (2018). MUHASEBEDE HATA YÖNETİMİ VE İŞ PERFORMANSI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN GÖREV KARMAŞIKLIĞI BAĞLAMINDA DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Muhasebe Ve Denetime Bakış, 18(55), 141-160.