Nezaketsizlik Ortamında Uçuş Emniyeti: Havacılıkta İletişim, Empati ve Mental İyi Oluşun Gücü

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 49, 249 - 270, 28.02.2026

Özlem Çapan Özeren

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1672253

https://izlik.org/JA62UT89JZ

Öz

Bu çalışma, havacılık çalışanlarında kişilerarası iletişim yetkinliği, işyeri nezaketsizliği ve mental iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkileri uçuş emniyeti bağlamında incelemektedir. Veriler, Türkiye’de kamu ve özel sektörde faaliyet gösteren havacılık kuruluşlarında görev yapan 443 çalışandan elde edilmiştir. Örneklem; 122 kadın (%27,5) ve 321 erkek (%72,5) katılımcıdan oluşmakta olup yaş dağılımı 18–25 yaş arası %9,9, 26–33 yaş arası %16,3, 34–41 yaş arası %25,3, 42–49 yaş arası %20,3 ve 50 yaş ve üzeri %28,2 şeklindedir. Veriler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (SEM) yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, kişilerarası iletişim yetkinliğinin mental iyi oluşu olumlu yönde etkilediğini, işyeri nezaketsizliğinin ise mental iyi oluş üzerinde anlamlı ve olumsuz bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca işyeri nezaketsizliğinin, iletişim yetkinliği ile mental iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide kısmi aracı rolü üstlendiği belirlenmiştir. Önerilen model, mental iyi oluş değişkenindeki varyansın %35,9’unu açıklamaktadır. Alt boyut analizleri, empati becerisinin işyeri nezaketsizliğini azaltarak mental iyi oluşu dolaylı biçimde desteklediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Mental iyi oluşu destekleyen iletişim iklimlerinin, durumsal farkındalık ve ekip koordinasyonu gibi uçuş emniyetini etkileyen insan faktörleri üzerinde koruyucu bir işlev gördüğü; empati temelli mikro iletişim becerilerinin EYS (Ekip Kaynak Yönetimi) ve hizmet içi eğitim programlarına entegre edilmesinin uçuş emniyetini güçlendirebileceği değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Havacılık Çalışanları , Kişilerarası İletişim Yetkinliği , İşyeri Nezaketsizliği , Mental İyi Oluş , Empati

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için Maltepe Üniversitesi Etik Kurulundan 2023/15-16 sayılı ve 14.09.2023 tarihli etik kurul onayı alınmıştır.

Flight Safety Amid Incivility: The Power of Communication, Empathy, and Mental Well-Being in Aviation

https://izlik.org/JA62UT89JZ

Öz

The study examines the relationships among interpersonal communication competence, workplace incivility, and mental well-being among aviation employees in the context of flight safety. Data are collected from 443 employees in public and private aviation organizations in Türkiye, consisting of 122 women (27.5%) and 321 men (72.5%). Age distribution includes 9.9% between 18-25 years, 16.3% between 26-33 years, 25.3% between 34-41 years, 20.3% between 42-49 years, and 28.2% aged 50 and above. The data are analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM). Findings indicate that interpersonal communication competence positively affects mental well-being, while workplace incivility has a significant adverse effect. Additionally, workplace incivility partially mediates the relationship between communication competence and mental well-being. The proposed model explains 35.9% of the variance in mental well-being. Sub-dimension analyses reveal that empathy reduces workplace incivility, indirectly supporting mental well-being. Communication climates fostering mental well-being provide a protective function for human factors influencing flight safety, such as situational awareness and team coordination. Thus, integrating empathy-based microcommunication skills into Crew Resource Management (CRM) and training programs may enhance flight safety, emphasizing the importance of communication training in safety protocols.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aviation Employees , Interpersonal Communication Competence , Workplace Incivility , Mental Well-Being , Empathy

Etik Beyan

For this study the approval of ethical committee no E-2023/15-16 dated 14.09.2023 was taken from the Ethical Committee, Maltepe University.

Kaynakça

• Andersson, L. M. ve Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
• Atashzadeh Shoorideh, F., Moosavi, S. ve Balouchi, A. (2021). Incivility toward nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 14, 15. https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v14i15.7670
• Beling, C. ve Wild, G. (2024). The association between emotional intelligence and decision making for pilots. Journal of Air Transport Management, 114, 102506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2023.102506
• Cahill, J., Cullen, P. ve Gaynor, K. (2023). The case for change: Aviation worker wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for an integrated health and safety culture. Cognition, Technology and Work, 25, 75–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00711-5
• Cahill, J., Cullen, P., Anwer, S., Gaynor, K. ve Wilson, S. (2020). The requirements for new tools for use by pilots and the aviation industry to manage risks pertaining to work-related stress and wellbeing, and the ensuing impact on performance and safety. Technologies, 8(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies8030040
• Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J. ve Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089
• Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H. ve Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
• Çapan Özeren, Ö. (2025). Power distance, communication, and safety: A study on aircraft maintenance workers. Üsküdar University Journal of Social Sciences, (20), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.32739/uskudarsbd.11.20.152
• Çıkrıkçı, Ö., ve Çinpolat, E. (2021). Kişilerarası iletişim yetkinliği envanterinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.908975
• Dekker, S. (2016). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability (2nd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315251271
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley and Sons.
• Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
• European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2023). Annual safety review 2023: Safety performance of the European aviation system in 2022. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-annual-safety-review-2023-published adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2024). Annual safety review 2024: Safety performance of the European aviation system (2023 data). https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/general-publications/annual-safety-review-2024 adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Performance and accountability report: Fiscal year 2016. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/afn/offices/finance/offices/budget/par/fy16-par-spfi.pdf adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Flin, R., O’Connor, P. ve Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate Publishing.
• French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis. (2015). Accident to the Airbus A320-211, registered D-AIPX and operated by Germanwings, flight GWI18G, on 24/03/2015 at Prads-Haute-Bléone. Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile.
• Gök, S., Karatuna, İ. ve Başol, O. (2019). İşyeri nezaketsizliği ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 22(44), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120181128m000009
• Gürbüz, S. (2024). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Temel ilkeler ve uygulamalı analizler (3. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Holm, K., Torkelson, E. ve Backström, M. (2015). Models of workplace incivility: The relationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes. BioMed Research International, 2015, 920239. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/920239
• Howick, J., de Zulueta, P. ve Gray, M. (2024). Beyond empathy training for practitioners: Cultivating empathic healthcare systems and leadership. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 30(4), 548–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13970
• Huang, Y.-C. ve Lin, S. H. (2018). An inventory for assessing interpersonal communication competence of college students. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 46(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2016.1237611
• International Air Transport Association. (2024). Safety report 2023: Executive and safety overview. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/a8e49941e8824a058fee3f5ae0c005d9/safety-report-executive-and-safety-overview-2023.pdf adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• International Civil Aviation Organization. (2020). Safety report 2020. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/sp-files/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2020_final_web.pdf adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
• Keldal, G. (2015). Warwick–Edinburgh Mental İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 3(1), 103–115.
• Kern, J. H. ve Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012684
• Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D. ve Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
• Ko, Y., Lee, H. ve Hyun, S. S. (2021). Airline cabin crew team system’s positive evaluation factors and their impact on personal health and team potency. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 10480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910480
• Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A. ve Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1258–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024442
• Liang, J., Farh, C. ve Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
• Lim, S. ve Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
• Lim, S. ve Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021726
• Madlock, P. E. (2012). The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers. International Journal of Business Communication, 49(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612436973
• Martin, W. L. (2019). Crew resource management and individual resilience. B. G. Kanki, J. Anca ve T. R. Chidester (Ed.), Crew resource management (3. Baskı) içinde (s. 207–226). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812995-1.00007-5
• Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
• Nadales-Gallego, A., Galindo-Reyes, F. ve Garrido-Moreno, A. (2025). Connecting internal communication and employee engagement in organizations: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 15(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251399773
• O’Rourke, N. ve Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling (2. Baskı). SAS Institute.
• Pacheco, D. C., Moniz, A. I. D. de S. A., Caldeira, S. N. ve Silva, O. D. L. da. (2025). Employee silence and psychological safety: Insights from an aviation company with broader organizational applications. Tourism and Management Studies, 21(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.20250207
• Pearson, C. M. ve Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841946
• Porath, C. ve Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121.
• Privy Council Office. (1992). Commission of inquiry into the Air Ontario crash at Dryden, Ontario: Final report (Cilt III; V. P. Moshansky, Komiser). Government of Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.699858vesl=0 adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate.
• Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L. ve Johnson, S. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and happiness at work. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ryff, C. D. ve Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
• Ryff, C. D. ve Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4
• Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. ve Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams and teamwork. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288457
• Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L. ve Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
• Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E. ve Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
• Segrin, C. ve Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.017
• Shahi, U. ve Sharma, L. (2024). Interpersonal communication and mental health: An impact study of interpersonal communication skills on mental health of youth. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4874014
• Shaikh, R. ve Dhamani, A. (2023). Communication and empowerment. Journal of Media and Communication Science, 6(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.29303/jcommsci.v6i1.2
• Sivil Havacılık Genel Müdürlüğü. (2019). Emniyet yönetimi el kitabı. https://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/yayinlar/sded/2019/Emniyet_Yonetimi_El_Kitabi.pdf adresinden 29 Ocak 2026 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5. Ed.). Pearson.
• Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
• Wiegmann, D. A. ve Shappell, S. A. (2017). A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (1. ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315263878
• Wu, A. C., Donnelly-McLay, D., Weisskopf, M. G., McNeely, E., Betancourt, T. S. ve Allen, J. G. (2016). Airplane pilot mental health and suicidal thoughts. Environmental Health, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0200-6
• Zhai, Q., Liu, T., Bao, J., Li, Y., Ji, X. ve Tian, J. (2025). The role of psychological stress in the subjective well-being of aviation ground crews: Mediating effects of social support and self-esteem. BMC Public Health, 25(1), Article 2989. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-24406-4