Özyeterlilikten Örgütsel Yeterliliğe: Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Temelinde Bir Değerlendirme

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 30. YönOrg 2022, 288 - 303, 30.12.2022

Başak Gogen

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1144209

Cited By: 1

Öz

Örgüt araştırmalarında, yönetici davranışlarının temelde iki şekilde ele alındığı görülmektedir. İlki, yöneticilerin kişilik özelliklerine bağlı özyeterliliklerinin öne çıktığı mikro bakış açısıdır. Bu yaklaşıma göre özyeterlilik aktör üzerinden tanımlandığından, yöneticilerin bulunabilecekleri önyargılı ve değişken davranışlar sebebiyle, örgütsel düzeyde kuramsal bir açıklama yapmakta yetersiz kalınmaktadır. Diğeri, söz konusu özyeterliliğin örgütün kişiye verdiği rolün sınırları içerisinde şekillendiğini öngören makro bakış açısıdır. Örgütsel seviyede tanımlanmış̧ yeterlilik standartları, pozisyon olarak yönetici rolünün de sınırlarını belirleyeceğinden, kişiden bağımsız yapısal bir yeterlilikten bahsedilebilecektir. Lider ile takipçileri arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkiye işaret eden Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramı, örgüt içerisindeki rollerin oluşumunu yalnızca lider ile takipçilerinin etkileşimine bağlayan yöntemsel bireyci bakış̧ açısına sahip olması açısından tartışmalıdır. Bu çalışmada, aktör üzerinden tanımlanan özyeterlilik ile yapı üzerinden tanımlanan örgütsel yeterlilik kavramları karşılaştırılmış, varılan sonuçlar Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramına eleştirel bir bakış̧ açısı içerisinde değerlendirilmiştir. Böylece, popüler bir kuram temelinde farklı epistemolojilerin tartışılmasıyla örgüt kuramı yazınına katkı sağlanması hedeflenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, örgütsel yeterliliğin lider ile üye etkileşimindeki nedensel ilişkilere güçlü yapısal açıklamalar getireceği, bunun da konuyu bireysel düzeyde ele alan Lider-Üye Etkileşimi kuramının açıklayıcılarına katkı sağlayacağı sonucuna varılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özyeterlilik, Örgütsel Yeterlilik, Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Kuramı, Aktör - Yapı

From Self-Efficacy to Organizational Efficacy: An Evaluation Based on Leader-Member Exchange

Öz

In organizational studies, there are basically two approaches in positioning the leader. At micro-organizational level, the definition of self-efficacy of any leader is characterized by his own personality traits. Thus, the efforts towards providing a theoretical explanation at the organizational level in terms of prejudiced and inconsistent behaviors that the leaders may have, becomes incommensurate. On the other hand, macro-organizational approach defines self-efficacy within the boundaries of the role that the organization assigns to the leader. Since the organizationally defined competence standards outline the limits of the managerial role, it would be possible to address structural self-efficacy independent of the agent. The Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), which emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between the leader and his followers, is controversial in terms of having a methodical individualist standpoint that explains the formation of roles within the organization solely on this agency-based interaction. In the study, a critical evaluation of LMX is conducted in terms of different epistemological views. It is expected to make an academic contribution by challenging an agency-based theory by a structuralist approach. As a result, it is argued that organizational efficacy would provide powerful explanations for the causal relationship between leader and member, thus contribute to the LMX theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Self-Efficacy, Organizational Efficacy, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Agency vs Structure

Kaynakça

• Agars, M. ve Kottke, J. L. (2020). Development of a theoretical framework and a measure of general organizational means-efficacy. Human Performance, 34(1), 1-24.
• Akyavuz, E. K. ve Aşıcı, E. (2021). The effect of volunteer management mentoring program on mentors’ entrepreneurship tendency and leadership self-efficacy. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 1–16.
• Alexander, J. N. C. ve Weil, H. G. (1969). Players, persons, and purposes: Situational meaning and the prisoner’s dilemma game. Sociometry, 32(2), 121–144.
• Al-Qatawneh, M. A. (2014). The impact of organizational structure on organizational commitment: A comparison between public and private sector firms in Jordan. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), 30-37.
• Ashforth, B. E. ve Schinoff, B. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(3), 111–137.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy; Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
• Bandura, A. (1990). Some reflections on reflections. Psychological Inquiry, 1(1), 101-105.
• Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
• Barrick, M. R. ve Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18(4), 359–372.
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
• Bohn, J. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65–79.
• Bohn, J. G. (2010). Development and exploratory validation of an organizational efficacy scale. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(3), 227–251.
• Brewer, M. B. ve Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
• Burke, P. J. ve Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An Identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(3), 239–251.
• Burke, P. J. ve Stets, J. E. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 347–366.
• Cao, D., Tao, H., Wan, Y., Tarhini, A. ve Xia, S. (2020). Acceptance of automation manufacturing technology in China; An examination of perceived norm and organizational efficacy. Production Planning and Control, 31(8), 660–672.
• Celani, A. ve Tasa, K. (2010). We’re all in this together: Examining associations between collectivistic group norms, collective efficacy and team performance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2010(1), 1–6.
• Dansereau, F., Graen, G. ve Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role of making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
• Dienesch, R. M. ve Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634.
• Du, J., Shin, Y. ve Choi, J. N. (2015). Convergent perceptions of organizational efficacy among team members and positive work outcomes in organizational teams. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 178–202.
• Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L. ve Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
• Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific subjective efficacy. M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck ve H. Thierry (Der.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy içinde (s. 65-77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C. ve Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 395–406.
• Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R. ve Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013-1034.
• Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H. ve Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(3), 244-256.
• Försterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 495–512.
• Fuchs, C., Sting, F. J., Schlickel, M. ve Alexy, O. (2019). The ideator’s bias: How identity-induced self-efficacy drives overestimation in employee-driven process innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1498–1522.
• Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.
• Gist, M. E. ve Mitchell, T. B. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
• Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology içinde (s.1201-1245). Rand McNally.
• Graen, G. B. ve Cahsman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt ve L. L. Larson, (Ed.) Leadership frontiers içinde (s. 143-165). Kent State University.
• Graen, G. B. ve Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 206–212.
• Graen, G. B. ve Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
• Graen, G. B., Orris, D. ve Johnson, T. (1973). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395-420.
• Günzel-Jensen, F., Jain, A. K. ve Kjeldsen, A. M. (2018). Distributed leadership in health care: The role of formal leadership styles and organizational efficacy. Leadership, 14(1), 110–133.
• Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F. ve Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692.
• Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358–374.
• Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. ve Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4(4), 418–428.
• Higgins, E. T., Klein, R. ve Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3(1), 51–76.
• Jones, E. E. (1979). Rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.
• Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
• Jones, H. B. (2001). Magic, meaning and leadership: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Human Relations, 54(6), 753–771.
• Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., ve Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
• Kelley, K. M. ve Bisel, R. S. (2014). Leaders’ narrative sensemaking during LMX role negotiations: Explaining how leaders make sense of who to trust and when. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 433–448.
• Kuvaas, B. ve Buch, R. (2016). Leader self-efficacy and role ambiguity and follower leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 41(1), 118-132.
• Liden, R. ve Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-65.
• Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J. ve Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy–performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.
• 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(2), 241–251.
• Markus, H. R. ve Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
• Matta, F. K. ve Van Dyne, V. (2015), Leader‐member exchange and performance: Where we are and where we go from here. T. N. Bauer ve B. Erdogan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leader‐Member Exchange içinde (s. 157–173). Oxford University Press.
• Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Ng, K. Y., Ang, S. ve Chan, K.Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.
• Rennesund, Å. B. ve Saksvik, P. Ø. (2010). Work performance norms and organizational efficacy as cross-level effects on the relationship between individual perceptions of self-efficacy, overcommitment, and work-related stress. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 629–653.
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
• Salancik, G. R. ve Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power – and how they hold onto it: A strategic contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 76–83.
• Sargut, A. S. (1995). Bürokrasinin Türkiye’deki darboğazı: Ulusal kültür – makine örgüt uzlaşmazlığı. Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini Sempozyumu Cilt I, (s. 121- 141). TODAİE Yayınları.
• Sargut, A. S. (1999). Institutionalization process in collectivist cultures: A cross-cultural approach. Utrecht Business Review, 1(1), 75-87.
• Scott, W. R. (1987). The Adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.
• Sosik, J., Potosky, D. ve Jung, D. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation: Meeting others’ expectations of leadership and performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 211–232.
• Spisak, B. R., O’Brien, M. J., Nicholson, N. ve van Vugt, M. (2015). Niche construction and the evolution of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 291–306.
• Spisak, B. R., Nicholson, N. ve van Vugt, M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences içinde (p. 165-190). Springer.
• Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 687–706.
• Stryker, S. ve Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.
• Taggar, S. ve Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-efficacy and team performance. Human Performance, 16(2), 131–156.
• Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. J. T. Jost ve J. Sidanius (Ed.), Political psychology: Key readings içinde (s. 276–293). Psychology Press.
• Taylor, S. E. ve Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249–288.
• Tsui, A. S. ve Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20(1), 93.
• Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K. ve Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
• Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M. ve Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
• Wood, R. ve Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
• Yaakobi E. (2018). Different types of efficacy – what best predicts behavior? Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 9(4), 381‒384.