Performans Beklentileri ile İşe Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişki: Öz-Yeterlilik ve İş Güvencesizliğinin Rolleri

Öz

Bu çalışmada, yöneticilerin yüksek performans beklentilerinin çalışanların öz yeterlilik algıları üzerinden işe bağlılıklarını nasıl şekillendirdiği ve bu etkileşimde iş güvencesizliğinin düzenleyici rolü incelenmektedir. Çalışma kapsamında, kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle çevrim içi anket uygulanarak Trabzon’daki özel sektörde çalışan öğretmenler ve satış elemanlarından oluşan iki farklı meslek grubundan 2024 yılının Ocak-Mart aylarında veriler toplanmış ve toplam 670 kişilik bir örneklem incelenmiştir. Toplanan veriler doğrultusunda, öz yeterliliğin aracılık rolünü analiz etmek için Hayes Process Model 4, iş güvencesizliğinin düzenleyici rolünü incelemek içinse Hayes Process Model 7 kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, yöneticilerin yüksek performans beklentilerinin çalışanların işe bağlılığıyla pozitif bir ilişki içinde olduğunu, bu ilişkide öz yeterliliğin aracı bir rol oynadığını ve iş güvencesizliğinin de bu etkiyi düzenleyici bir unsur olarak etkilediğini göstermiştir. Öz yeterliliğin işe bağlılık üzerindeki aracılık etkisinin öğretmenlerde %14.7, satış elemanlarında ise %47.6 olması, bu ilişkinin meslek gruplarına göre anlamlı farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koyan önemli bir bulgudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşe Bağlılık
• İş Güvencesizliği
• Öz Yeterlilik
• Yüksek Performans Beklentisi

Linking Performance Expectations to Work Engagement: Roles of Self-Efficacy and Job Insecurity

Öz

This study examines how managers' high performance expectations influence employees' work engagement through their self-efficacy perceptions, and explores the moderating role of job insecurity in this relationship. Within the scope of the study, data were collected between January and March 2024 from two distinct occupational groups private-sector teachers and sales representatives in Trabzon, through an online questionnaire administered using convenience sampling. A total sample of 670 participants was analyzed. Based on the collected data, Hayes Process Model 4 was used to analyze the mediating role of self-efficacy, while Hayes Process Model 7 was employed to examine the moderating role of job insecurity. The results indicated that managers' high performance expectations are positively associated with employees' work engagement, with self-efficacy serving as a mediating variable and job insecurity acting as a moderator in this relationship. The mediating effect of self-efficacy on job engagement was 14.7% for teachers and 47.6% for sales representatives, indicating a meaningful difference across occupational groups.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• High Performance Expectation
• Job Insecurity
• Self Efficacy
• Work Engagement

Etik Beyan

This study was approved by the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Gümüşhane University, under the resolution numbered 2022/6, dated October 26, 2022.

Kaynakça

1. Appelbaum, S. H. ve Hare, A. (1996). Self‐efficacy as a Mediator of Goal Setting and Performance:Some Human Resource Applications. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949610113584
2. Arslan, H. ve Göksoy, S. (2017). Hedef Kuramı Kapsamında Beklenen ve Gerçekleşen Yönetici Davranışları. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 32-47.
3. Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., ve Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric Properties of The Italian Version of The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000020
4. Beltran-Martin, I., Guinot-Reinders, J. ve Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2023). Employee Psychological Conditions as Mediators of The Relationship between Human Resource Management and Employee Work Engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(11), 2331-2365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2078990
5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit Indexes, Lagrange Multipliers, Constraint Changes and Incomplete Data in Structural Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_3
6. Berlew, D. E. ve Hall, D. T. (1966). The Socialization of Managers: Effects of Expectations on Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 207-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391245
7. Boyd, R. ve MacNeill, N. (2020). How Teachers' Self-fulfilling Prophecies, Known as The Pygmalion Effect, influence students' success. Education Today, 24.
8. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

9. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534
10. Chen, G., Gully, S. M. ve Eden, D. (2004). General Self‐Efficacy and Self‐Esteem: Toward Theoretical and Empirical Distinction between Correlated Self‐Evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 375-395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.251
11. Creer, T. L. ve Wigal, J. K. (1993). Self-Efficacy. Chest, 103(5), 1316-1317. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.103.5.1316
12. Cumming, J. ve Hall, C. (2004). The Relationship between Goal Orientation and Self‐Efficacy for Exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 747-763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02514.x
13. De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W. ve Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On The Relation of Job Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12079
14. De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., Handaja, Y., Sverke, M., Naswall, K. ve Hellgren, J. (2010). Associations Between Quantitative and Qualitative Job Insecurity and Well-being: A Test in Belgian Banks. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825400103
15. Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, Goal Setting and Expectancy: Compatible Ways to Boost Productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1988.4307530
16. Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and Expectations: Pygmalion Effects and Other Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90018-B
17. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
18. Fortes Tondello, G., Premsukh, H. ve Nacke, L. (2018). A Theory of Gamification Principles Through Goal-setting Theory. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.140
19. Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A. ve Jones, E. (2009). The Motivation Hub: Effects of Goal Setting and Self-efficacy on Effort and New Product Sales. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(3), 277-292. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2753/PSS0885-3134290305
20. Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. ve Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” Understanding The Role of Resources in Conservation of Resources Theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
21. Harrison, J., Bosse, D. ve Phillips, R. (2010). Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.801
22. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. Guilford Publications.
23. Heslin, P. A. ve Klehe, U. C. (2006).Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia Of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, SG Rogelberg, ed, 2, 705-708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1150858
24. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
25. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008, September). Evaluating Model Fit: A Synthesis of The Structural Equation Modelling Literature. In 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (Vol. 2008, pp. 195-200). https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
26. Jacobsen, C. B. ve Andersen, L. B. (2019). High Performance Expectations: Concept and Causes. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(2), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1405443
27. Jahan, F. ve Mehrafzoon, D. (2019). Effectiveness of Pygmalion Effect-based Education of Teachers on The Students’ Self-efficacy and Academic Engagement. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 1(4), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.22034/iepa.2019.89167
28. Joet, G., Usher, E. L. ve Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of Self-efficacy: An Investigation of Elementary School Students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 649. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024048
29. Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specific Motivation: An Integrative Approach to Issues of Measurement, Mechanisms, Processes and Determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 237-264. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1521/jscp.1987.5.2.237
30. Karatepe, O. M. ve Olugbade, O. A. (2016). The Mediating Role of Work Engagement in The Relationship Between High-Performance Work Practices and Job Outcomes of Employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2350-2371. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2015-0145
31. Kehoe, R. R. ve Wright, P. M. (2013). The Impact of High-Performance Human Resource Practices on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365901
32. Khan, N. A., Michalk, S., Sarachuk, K. ve Javed, H. A. (2022). If You Aim Higher Than You Expect, You Could Reach Higher Than You Dream: Leadership and Employee Performance. Economies, 10(6), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10060123
33. Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
34. Li, Y., Chen, M., Lyu, Y. ve Qiu, C. (2016). Sexual Harassment and Proactive Customer Service Performance: The Roles of Job Engagement and Sensitivity to Interpersonal Mistreatment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 54, 116-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.02.008
35. Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.
36. Lisbona Banuelos, A., Palací Descals, F. J., Salanova Soria, M. L. ve Frese, M. (2018). The Effects of Work Engagement and Self-efficacy on Personal Initiative and Performance. Psicothema. http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.245
37. Livingston, J. S. (2009). Pygmalion in Management. Harvard Business Review Press.
38. Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G. P. (2002). Building A Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
39. Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G. P. (2019). The Development of Goal Setting Theory: A Half Century Retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
40. Locke, E. A. ve Latham, G. P. (2020). Building A Theory By Induction: The Example of Goal Setting Theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(3-4), 223-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041386620921931
41. Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal Theory Vs. Control Theory: Contrasting Approaches to Understanding Work Motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991473
42. Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. ve Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of Self-Efficacy, Goals and Task Strategies on Task Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241
43. Locke, E. A., Motowidlo, S. J. ve Bobko, P. (1986). Using Self-Efficacy Theory To Resolve The Conflict Between Goal-Setting Theory and Expectancy Theory in Organizational Behavior and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 328-338. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.328
44. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 15(1), 1-6.
45. Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-Efficacy Theory. In Self-Efficacy, Adaptation and Adjustment (pp. 3-33). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6868-5_1
46. Mao, H. Y., Chien, Y. Y. ve Hsieh, A. T. (2019). Job Insecurity and Abusive Supervision. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 74(4), 780-808. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066462
47. McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X and Theory Y. Organization Theory, The Professional Manager New York: McGraw-Hill, 358(374), 5.
48. Meydan, C. H. ve Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları (1.Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
49. Mostafa, A. M. S. ve Gould-Williams, J. S. (2014). Testing The Mediation Effect of Person–Organization Fit on The Relationship Between High Performance HR Practices and Employee Outcomes In The Egyptian Public Sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 276-292. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/09585192.2013.826917
50. Mushtaq, Y. ve Khalidi, M. (2016). A Study on Pygmalion Effect: A Case of Academic Training in A Military Unit. Market Forces, 11(1), https://marketforcesjournal.kiet.edu.pk/index.php/marketforces/article/view/311
51. Nunnally, J. C. ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
52. Phillips, J. M. ve Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of Goal Orientation, Ability, Need for Achievement and Locus of Control in The Self-efficacy and Goal-Setting Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.792
53. Probst, T. M. (2000). Wedded to the job: moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.63
54. Richter, A., Tafvelin, S. ve Sverke, M. (2018). The Mediated Relationship of Leadership on Job Insecurity. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.43
55. Saxena, S. (2016). Pygmalion Effect: An Innovative Tool to Increase Motivation. CPJ Global Review.
56. Schmidt, G. B. (2019). The Need for Goal-setting Theory and Motivation Constructs in Lean Management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 251-254. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.48
57. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A. ve King, J. (2006). Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
58. Seker, S. E. (2014). Beklenti Teorisi (Expectacy Theory). Ybs Ansiklopedisi, 1(3), 15-17.
59. Shao, H., Fu, H., Ge, Y., Jia, W., Li, Z. ve Wang, J. (2022). Moderating Effects of Transformational Leadership, Affective Commitment, Job Performance and Job Insecurity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 847147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.847147
60. Sides, J. D. ve Cuevas, J. A. (2020). Effect of Goal Setting for Motivation, Self-efficacy and Performance in Elementary Mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1341a
61. Syrek, C. J. ve Antoni, C. H. (2014). Unfinished Tasks Foster Rumination and Impair Sleeping—Particularly if Leaders Have High Performance Expectations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(4), 490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037127
62. Thomas, K. M. ve Mathieu, J. E. (1994). Role of Causal Attributions in Dynamic Self-regulation and Goal Processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 812-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.812
63. Tian, G., Wang, J., Zhang, Z. ve Wen, Y. (2019). Self-efficacy and Work Performance: The Role of Work Engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(12), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8528
64. Tierney, P. ve Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001
65. Van Den Ouweland, L., Vanhoof, J. ve Van den Bossche, P. (2019). Principals' and Teachers' Views on Performance Expectations for Teachers. An Exploratory Study in Flemish Secondary Education. Pedagogische Studiën, 95(4), 272-292.
66. Veestraeten, M., Johnson, S. K., Leroy, H., Sy, T. ve Sels, L. (2021). Exploring The Bounds of Pygmalion Effects: Congruence of Implicit Followership Theories Drives and Binds Leader Performance Expectations and Follower Work Engagement. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 28(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820980428
67. Wang, F., Zhang, M., Das, A. K., Weng, H. ve Yang, P. (2021). Aiming at The Organizational Sustainable Development: Employees’ Pro-Social Rule Breaking as Response to High Performance Expectations. Sustainability, 13(1), 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010267
68. Wellington, W. J. ve Faria, A. J. (1992). An Examination of The Effect of Team Cohesion, Player Attitude and Performance Expectations on Simulation Performance Results. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference (Vol. 19).
69. West, L. ve Roxanne M. Thorn, R. (2001). Goal-setting, Self-efficacy and Memory Performance in Older and Younger Adults. Experimental Aging Research, 27(1), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730126109
70. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F. ve Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754
71. Yakın, M. ve Erdil, O. (2012). Relationships Between Self-efficacy and Work Engagement and The Effects on Job Satisfaction: A Survey on Certified Public Accountants. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 370-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1013
72. Yavuz, N. ve Sağlam, M. (2018). İşkoliklik ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti Arasındaki İlişkide İş Yaşam Dengesinin Aracılık Rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(4), 922-952. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2018.556
73. Zhou, X., Ma, J. ve Dong, X. (2018). Empowering Supervision and Service Sabotage: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory. Tourism Management, 64, 170-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.016