Demografik özelliklere göre sağlık çalışanlarının işyeri ilişkileri kalitesi algısı üzerine bir araştırma

Yıl 2022, , 18 - 42, 31.01.2022

Ramazan Çoban , Mehmet Deniz

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.911553

Öz

İşyeri ilişkileri kalitesi, çalışanların işyerinde yaşadıkları ilişkileriyle ilgili olumlu veya olumsuz algılarını ifade eden bir kavramdır. Örgütsel, bireysel ve demografik özellikler gibi birçok faktör işyeri ilişkileri kalitesini etkileyebilir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, demografik özelliklere göre çalışanların işyeri ilişkileri kalitesi algısının farklılık gösterip göstermediğini incelemektir. Araştırma kapsamında bir işyerinin temel ilişkilerinden olan yönetici ast, mentör eğitilen ve mevkidaş çalışanlar ilişkileri ele alınmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Malatya ilinde sağlık sektöründe görevli 468 çalışan oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada veri toplamak amacıyla anket yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Anketten elde edilen veriler, SPSS 21 paket programında ölçek geçerlilik, güvenilirlik, veri normallik testi, T-Testi ve ANOVA analizlerine tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma bulgularına göre; medeni durum, yaş, eğitim durumu, çalışma süresi ve görev ünvanına göre çalışanların işyeri ilişkileri kalitesi algısının farklı olduğu, ancak cinsiyete göre farklı olmadığı görülmüştür. Özellikle genç, bekâr ve deneyimsiz çalışanların yönetici ve mentörler ile ilişkilerinin kalitesinden daha memnun oldukları; mevkidaş çalışanlar ilişki kalitesinin ise sadece görev ünvanına göre farklı olduğu görülmüştür. Doktorlar ve yardımcı sağlık personeli ile kıyaslandığında hemşirelerin işyeri ilişkileri kalitesinden daha memnun oldukları; diğer çalışanlara göre doktorların yöneticileri ile ilişkilerinin kalitesinin daha düşük olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmanın işyeri ilişkileri ile ilgili literatüre katkı sağlayacağı ve gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalara ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşyeri İlişkileri, İlişki Kalitesi, Demografik Özellikler, Sağlık Sektörü

A study on healthcare professionals’ perception of workplace relationship quality according to demographic features

Öz

Workplace relationship quality is a concept that expresses the positive or negative perceptions of employees about their relationships in the workplace. Many factors such as organizational, individual and demographic features can affect the workplace relationship quality. The purpose of this study is to examine whether employees' perception of workplace relationship quality differs according to demographic features. The relations between manager-subordinate, mentor-trained/apprentice and counterpart employees, which are main relationships of workplace, were examined in the study. The sample of the study consists of 468 employees working in the health sector in Malatya city of Turkey. Questionnaire method was used to collect data in the study. The data were subjected to scale validity, reliability, data normality test, T-Test and ANOVA analysis in SPSS 21 package program. According to the study findings; It was seen that employees' perception of workplace relationship quality was different according to marital status, age, educational status, working time and job title, but not by gender. Especially young, single and inexperienced employees are more satisfied with the quality of their relations with managers and mentors; On the other hand, it was observed that relationship quality of counterpart employees differed only by the job title. Compared to doctors and assistant health personnel, nurses are more satisfied with workplace relationship quality. It was observed that the quality of the relations of doctors with their managers was lower than other employees. It is thought that the study will contribute to the literature on workplace relations and shed light on future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Workplace Relations, Relationship Quality, Demographic Features, Health Sector

Kaynakça

• Abe, I. I., & Mason, R. B. (2016). The role of individual interpersonal relationships on work performance in the South African retail sector. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(2), 192-200.
• Acitelli, L. A. (2008). Knowing when to shut up: Do relationship reflections help or hurt relationship satisfaction? In J. P. Forgas ve J. Fitness (Eds.), Social Relationships: Cognitive, affective and motivational processes (pp. 115-129), New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
• Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship Effectiveness for mentors: Factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29(4), 469-486.
• Altay, M. (2018). Çalışma yaşam kalitesinin iş tatmini, örgütsel bağlılık ve işten ayrılma niyeti ile ilişkisinde iş yükü ve lider-üye etkileşiminin rolü. (Doktora Tezi). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Isparta.
• Balcı, M. (2012). Otel işletmelerinde mentörlük uygulamaları üzerine bir araştırma. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Çanakkale.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (volume 4, pp. 71-81), New York: Academic Press.
• Beehr, T., Jex, S., Stacy, B., & Murray, M. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391-406.
• Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260-266.
• Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 81-98.
• Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
• Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525-622.
• Crutcher, B. N. (2007). Mentoring across cultures. Academe, 93(4), 44-48.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper&Row.
• Diener, E. & Seligman, M. E .P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.
• Duan, C., & Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274.
• Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 22(5), 607-627.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ehlers, L. I. (2017). Conceptualising primary labour relationship quality. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 20(1), 1-11.
• Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460-481.
• Farooqi, S. R. (2014). The construct of relationship quality. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, 1-11.
• Feeley, T. H., Hwang, J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Predicting employee turnover from friendship networks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 56-73.
• Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. D. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management 35(6), 1379-1403.
• Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together. New York: Penguin Books.
• Gabarro, J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Gaur, M., & Ebrahimi, N. (2015). Understanding workplace relationships with special reference to superior-subordinate relationship an ımportant dimension having impact on the success, growth and performance of the employees and organization. International Journal of Research and Development, 2(2), 7-12.
• Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality of mentoring relationships? Group & Organization Management, 25(3), 291-317.
• Golden, T. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 319-40.
• Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Arrow Books.
• Graen, G., Dansereau, F., & Minami, T. (1972). Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 216-236.
• Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe-yöntem-analiz. 4. Basım, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Haga, W. J. (1976). Managerial professionalism and the use of organization resources. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 35(4), 337-348.
• Hain, C. A. (2005). Coworker relationships: Using a new measure to predict health related outcomes. (Master Thesis). Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
• Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56-87.
• İslamoğlu, H., & Alnıaçık, Ü. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. 4. Basım, İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın.
• Jian, G. (2012). Does culture matter? An examination of the association of ımmigrants’ acculturation with workplace relationship quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 295-321.
• Kabdulova E., & Öztürk, E. B. (2017). The relationship between mentoring functions received and psychological empowerment: The role of trust and political skill. The Journal of Human and Work, 4(1), 47-60.
• Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7 (3), 269-283.
• Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). The policy exists but you can’t really use ıt.: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50-77.
• Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The Role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
• Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625.
• Lee, A. P., Teng, H. Y., & Chen, C. Y. (2015). Workplace relationship quality and employee job outcomes in hotel firms. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14, 398-422.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M., (1998), Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
• Lin, S. C., Shu, J. & Lin, J. (2011). Impacts of coworkers' relationships on organizational commitment and intervening effects of job satisfaction. African Journal of Business Management, 5(8), 3396-3409.
• Madlock P. E., Matt, M. M., Bogdan L., & Ervin, M. (2007). The impact of communication traits on leader-member exchange. Human Communication, 10(4), 451-464.
• Moriguchi, S. N., Júnior, S. B., Andrade, D. F., & Murakami, L. C. (2016). Relationship quality in electronic commerce. Contextus Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão, 14(1), 83-107.
• Munyon, T. P. (2009). An Investigation of ınterpersonal distance and relationship quality at work. (Doctoral Dissertation). The Florida State University College Of Business.
• Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations: attachmenttheory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543-554.
• Patricia, O. (2015). Improving interpersonal relationship in workplaces. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 115-125.
• Payne, H. J. (2014). Examining the relationship between trust in supervisor-employee relationships and workplace dissent expression. Communication Research Reports, 31(2), 131-140.
• Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 271-293.
• Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1997). The way we were: gender and the termination of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 945-953.
• Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 482-521.
• Rhodes, J. E., Schwartz, S. E. O., Willis, M. M., & Wu, M. B. (2017). Validating a mentoring relationship quality scale: Does match strength predict match length? Youth & Society, 49(4), 415-437.
• Rosales, R. M. (2016). Energizing social ınteractions at work: An exploration of relationships that generate employee and organizational thriving. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 29-33.
• Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.
• Shamdasani, P. (2011). Relationship quality between ın-groups and out-groups. International Business & Economics Research, 10(6), 33-61.
• Sherony, K., & Green, S. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542-548.
• Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273-299.
• Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4), 375-395.
• Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, E. J. (2012). High-quality connections. In Cameron, K. & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 385-399). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L .S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
• Walsh, B. B., Gillespie, C. K., Greer, J. M., & Eanes B. E. (2002). Measure of dyadic mutuality on counselor trainee willingness to self-disclose clinical mistakes to supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 21, 83-98.
• Washington, S., Akella, D., & Bennett, C. (2016). A study on mentor-protégé assessments in healthcare ındustry. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 6 (1), 11-23.