ASKERİ NİTELİKLİ KOLLUK YÖNETİMİNDE YENİ BİR İNSAN GÜCÜ YAPISI MODELİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı “yönetim alanı’ prensibinin askerî nitelikli kolluk organizasyonlarının insan gücü yapılanması üzerine olan etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmada öncelikle yönetim alanı ilkesinin kapsamı tanımlanmış ve insan gücü yapısı, statü ve örgütsel yönleriyle Türkiye’deki askeri nitelikli kolluk özelliği sergileyen Jandarma Genel Komutanlığı üzerinde analiz edilmiştir. Devamında,“1’e 3 kontrol yapısı” prensibi Jandarma Genel Komutanlığı insan gücü yapısına entegre edilerek kolluk yönetimine özgü yeni bir insan gücü modeli geliştirilmiştir. Bu modele istinaden personel temin ihtiyaçlarının belirlenebilmesi için bir hesaplama yöntemi formüle edilmiştir. Bu hesaplamaya dayanarak, ideal personel sayıları tespit edilmiş ve hedeflenen insan gücü yapısına erişebilmek için personel mevcutları belirlenerek, temin ve yetiştirmeye ilişkin oranlar ortaya konulmuştur. Son olarak, Jandarma Genel Komutanlığının 2018 yılı Değerlendirme Raporunda açıkladığı personel mevcutları kullanılarak, gelecekteki durumu öngörebilen bir matematiksel model kurulmuş ve bir benzetimi gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yönetim Alanı,İnsan Gücü Yapısı,İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi,Kolluk Yönetimi,Piramit Yapı

A NEW MANPOWER STRUCTURE MODEL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH MILITARY QUALITY ADMINISTRATION

Öz

The aim of this study is to reveal the impact of span of management principle on manpower structure of law enforcement wit military quality. Firstly, the scope of span of management principle has been defined and then it has been analyzed in the Gendarmerie General Command which demonstrates military quality with manpower structure, status and organizational aspects. Afterwards, a new law enforcement manpower model has been developed through integrating the principle of "1 to 3 control structure" into the manpower structure of the Gendarmerie General Command. Regarding this model, a calculation method has been formulated to determine the needs of personnel recruitments. Based on this calculation, ideal personnel numbers have been found out and to be able to reach the targeted manpower structure, the rates of personnel recruitment and training have been figured out. Finally, a mathematical model that can predict the future situation has been established and a simulation has been conducted by using the personnel numbers published in the 2018 Assessment Report of the Gendarmerie General Command.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Span of Management,Structure of Manpower,Human Resource Management,Law Enforcement Management,Pyramid Structure

Kaynakça

1. Burke, Ronald, “Unit Size, Work Experiences and Satisfactions: An Exploratory Study, Psychological Reports”, 78 (3), 1996, s. 763-768.
2. Clausewitz, Carl Von, On War, (Ed. and Trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret), Princeton University, Princeton, 1984.
3. Cogliser, Claudia ve Chester Shriesheim, “Exploring Work Unit Context and Le- ader-Member Exchange: A Multilevel Perspective”, Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 21(5), 2000, s. 487-511.
4. Çelikbıçak, Müge Borazan, Benzetim Teknikleri ile J.Gn.K.lığı İnsangücü Yapı- sının Modellenmesi, Personel Yönetimi ve Teşkilatlanma Çalıştayı, JSGA, 2018.
5. Dinçer, Deniz, Benzetim Tekniği ile Çağrı Merkezlerinde Vardiya Planlama, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2006.
6. Fayol, Henri, Philosophy of Organization, Chicago, 1942.
7. Fisch, Gerald, “Stretcching the Span of Management”, Harward Business Re- view, Vol. 41, No. 5,1963, s. 74-85.
8. Gerni, Günseli Mine, Örgütlerin Yönetiminde Kontrol Alanı İlkesi ve Bir Uygu- lama, Atatürk Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F., Doktora Tezi, Erzurum, 1985.

9. Gittell, Joddy Hoffer, “Supervisory Span, Relational Coordination and Flight De- parture Performance: A Reassessment of Postbureaucracy Theory”. Orga- nization Science, 12(4), 2001, s. 468-483.
10. Graicunas, Vytautas Andrius, “Relationships in Organizations”, Papers on the Science of Administration, (Ed. L.Gullick ve L.Urwick), Newyork, 1937, s. 183-187.
11. Green, Stephen, Stella Anderson ve Sherly Shivers, “Demographic and Organi- zational Influences on Leader-Member Exchange and Related Work Atti- tudes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 1996, s. 203-214.
12. Güler, Hüseyin, İstatistiksel Simülasyon Ders Notları, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2006.
13. Hamilton, Ian, The Soul and Body Of an Army, London, 1921.
14. Harrison, Robert, Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation, American Institute of Physics, 2010.
15. Hattrup, George, “How to establish the proper span of control for managers.”, http://www.allbusiness.com/management/412518- 1.html#ixzz1aToAmXVz, (23.12.2018).
16. Healey, James, Executive Coordination and Control, Columbus, Chic, 1956.
17. Hechanova, Regina Alampay ve Terry Beehr, “Empowerment, Span of Control, and Safety Performance in Work Teams After Workforce Reduction”, Jo- urnal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(4), 2001, s. 275-282.
18. Hopej, Marian ve Januzs Martan, “The Determination Of Span Of Control”, Ba- dania Operacyjne Deccyzje, Vol.2., 2006, s.55-62.
19. Jaszek Jakością, Doskonalenie Struktury Organizacyjnej Przedsiębiorstwa, TNOIK, Katowice, 1984.
20. Kendall, Henry, “The Problem of the Chief Executive”, Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 7, 1922, s. 40-45.
21. Kıeżun Witold, Sprawne Kierowanie Organizacją, Szkoła Główna Handlowa, Warszawa, 1997.
22. Knootz, Harold ve Cyril O’Donnel, Essential Of Management, Newyork, 1978.
23. Meier, Kenneth ve John Bohte, “Ode to Uther Gulick: Span of Control and Orga- nizational Performance”, Administration and Society, 32(2), 2000, s. 115- 137.
24. Özgür, Erdem, Devlet ve Jandarma: Güvenlik ve Kolluk Perspektifinde Jandarma Personel Sistemi, Gazi, Ankara, 2019.
25. Price, Wilson, Alian Martel ve K. A. Lewis, “A Review of Mathematical Models in Human Resource Planning, OMEGA”, The International Journal of Ma- nagement Sciences, Vol.8, No.6, 1980, s. 639-645.
26. Pierce, William, Span Of Control and The Operational Commander: Is It More Than Just A Number? School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College, Kansas, 1991.
27. Schriesheim, Chester, Staphanie Castro ve Francis Yammarino, “Investigating Contingencies: An Examination of The Impact of Span of Supervision and Upward Controllingness on Leadermember Exchange Using Traditional and Multivariate Within- and Between – Entities Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 2000, s. 659-677.
28. Seal, Hilary, “The Mathematics Of a Population Composed Of Kstationary Strata Each Recruited From The Stratum Below And Supported At The Lowest Level By a Uniform Annual Number Of Entrants”, Biometrica, 33, 1945, s. 226-230.
29. Simon, Herbert Alexander, Administrative Behaviour, 3rd Ed., Newyork, 1976.
30. Stieglitz, Harold, “Optimizing Span of Control”, Management Record, 24, 1962, s. 25-29. TBMM 127 no’lu Milli Savunma Komisyon Raporu, https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTA- NAK/TBMM/d23/c019/tbmm23019095ss0127.pdf (12.07.2019).
31. United States Army, FM 71-3, Armored and Mechanized Infantry Brigade. Ft. Knox, Ky, 1988.
32. United States Army, FM 71-100, Division Operations, Ft.Leavenworth, Ks., 1990.
33. Urwick, Lyndall Fownes, “Axions of Organization”, Public Administration Ma- ganize, Oct.,1955, s. 348-349.
34. Vajda Steven, “The Stratified Semi-Stationary Population”. Biometrika, 34(3/4), 1947, s. 243–254.
35. Van Fleet, David ve Arthur Bedeian, “A History of the Span of Management”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1977, s. 356-372.
36. White, William, Is Anybody Listening?, Newyork, 1952.
37. Worthy, James, “Organizational Structure and Employee Morale”, American So- ciology Review, 1959, s. 169-179.