Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Yönetici Seçiminde Oy Kararını Etkileyen Kriterlerin Önem Düzeyinin Bulanık AHP Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 255 - 269, 21.04.2017
https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.307532

Öz

Ülkemizin ekonomik ve sosyal gelişiminde önemli misyon üstlenen devlet üniversitelerinin gelişmelerinde en önemli rolü yetki ve sorumluluklarıyla en üst makamda rektörler ve onların yetkisinde oluşturulan yönetim kademeleri üstlenmektedir. Her dört yılda bir üniversitelerde önemli bir gündem konusu olan rektör seçim süreci beraberinde farklı tartışmaları da gündeme getirmiş ve sonuçta 2016 yılı Ekim ayında yapılan yasal düzenlemeyle kaldırılmıştır. Oy verenler açısından bu sürecin nasıl bir karar mekanizması içerdiği ampirik açıdan ele alınmamış bir konudur. Bu çalışmada yükseköğretim kurumlarında dekan, bölüm başkanı gibi yönetici atamalarında isteğe bağlı uygulanabilen seçim yöntemi ve önerilecek yeni yöntemlere ışık tutması açısından, devlet üniversitelerinde rektör aday belirleme seçimlerinde oy kullanan öğretim üyelerinin oy kararını verirken hangi kriterleri dikkate aldıkları bir uygulama araştırmasıyla tespit edilmeye çalışılmış ve belirlenen kriterlerin oy kararındaki ağırlıkları iki farklı metotla Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (BAHP) yöntemi kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Daha sonra kriterlerin öğretim üyesi unvanlarına göre ne düzeyde değerlendirildiği incelenerek sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Örneklemden elde edilen sonuçlara göre unvanlar düzeyinde kriter önem sırasının değişmediği tespit edilmiş, fakat kriter önem düzeylerinin unvanlara göre farklılaştığı saptanmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Arap, S. K. (2011). “Türkiye’de Rektör Belirleme Süreci ve “Mütevelli Heyeti” Tartışmaları”. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 6(16), 1–32.
  • Bahurmoz, A. M. (2006). “The analytic hierarchy process: a methodology for win-win management”. JKAU: Econ. & Adm, 20(1), 3–16.
  • Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F. ve Mcphee, W. N. (1954). Voting: a study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Bew, R. ve Fields, R. (2012). Voting decisions at US mutual funds: How investors really use proxy advisers, IRRC Institute.
  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. ve Stokes, D. E. (1960). The american voter. New York: Willey.
  • Chang, D.-Y. (1996). “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
  • Choi, S., Fisch, J. ve Kahan, M. (2013). “Who Calls the Shots: How Mutual Funds Vote on Director Elections”. Harvard Business Law Review, 3, 35-81.
  • Csutora, R. ve Buckley, J. J. (2001). “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The Lamda-Max method”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120, 181-195.
  • Çelik, Z. ve Bekir, S. (2014). “Yükseköğretim sistemlerinin yönetimi ve üniversite özerkliği: Küresel eğilimler ve Türkiye örneği”. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 4(1), 18–27.
  • Doğramacı, İ. (2007). Türkiye’de ve dünyada yükseköğretim yönetimi. Ankara: Meteksan A.Ş.
  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
  • Durán, O. ve Aguilo, J. (2008). “Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach”. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1787–1794.
  • Erdoğmuş, N. (2014). “Türkiye’de Üniversite Rektörlerinin Sosyo-Demografik Özellikleri ve Kariyer Hazırlıkları”. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 4(1), 44–53.
  • Hammer, T. H. ve Berman, M. (1981). “The role of noneconomic factors in faculty union voting”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 415–421.
  • Hemmasi, M. ve Graf, L. A. (1993). “Determinants of faculty voting behavior in union representation elections: A multivariate model”. Journal of Management, 19(1), 13–32.
  • Iliev, P., Lins, K. V., Miller, D. P. ve Roth, L. (2015). “Shareholder Voting and Corporate Governance Around the World”. Review of Financial Studies, 28(8), 2167–2202.
  • Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z. ve Tam, S. (2001). “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design”. Expert Systems, 18(1), 32–42.
  • Martinez, A. D., Fiorito, J. ve Ferris, G. R. (2011). “Solidarity Revisited: Group-level Effects on Individual-level Union Voting”. Journal of Labor Research, 32(1), 61–74.
  • Mikhailov, L. (2003). “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 365-385.
  • Mutlu, L. (2009). Devlet ve vakıf üniversiteleri: Rektör seçiminin önemi. İstanbul: Yalın Yayıncılık.
  • Önüt, S., Soner Kara, S. ve Efendigil, T. (2008). “A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(4), 443–453.
  • Royes, G. F. ve Bastos, R. C. (2001). “Political analysis using fuzzy MCDM”. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 11(1,2), 53–64.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1995). Decision making for leaders: the analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
  • Saaty, T. L. ve Ozdemir, M. S. (2003). “Why the magic number seven plus or minus two”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38(3–4), 233–244.
  • Sato, Y. (2005). “Questionnaire design for survey research: Employing weighting method”. Içinde Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
  • Sato, Y. (2009). “How to Measure Human Perception in Survey Questionnaires”. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1(2).
  • Scott, G., Bell, S., Coates, H. ve Grebennikov, L. (2010). “Australian higher education leaders in times of change: The role of ProVice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(4), 401-418.
  • Summers, T. P., Betton, J. H. ve Decotiis, T. A. (1986). “Voting For and Against Unions: A Decision Model”. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 643–655.
  • Traugott, W. M. ve Lavrakas, J. P. (2000). The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, 2ed. New York: Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, LLC.
  • Vaidya, O. S. ve Kumar, S. (2006). “Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
  • Laarhoven, P. J. M. ve Pedrycz, W. (1983). “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 199–227.
  • Wang, Y.-M., Luo, Y. ve Hua, Z. (2008). “On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735–747.
  • Whitchurch, C. (2007). “Who do they think they are? The changing identities of professional administrators and managers in UK higher education”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 159-171.
  • Zalesny, M. D. (1985). “Comparison of economic and noneconomic factors in predicting faculty vote preference in a union representation election”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 243–256.

Determination of the Importance of Criteria Effecting Voting Decision in Management Election in Higher Education Institutions Using Fuzzy AHP

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 255 - 269, 21.04.2017
https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.307532

Öz

Rectors and the management teams have the most important role with their authority and responsibilities in the development of public universities which have an important mission in the economic and social development of our country. The process of rector elections once in every four year became an important topic on universities’ agenda that caused various discussions. As a result of these discussions rector elections are no longer to be held due to the law that has been changed on October 2016. This process has not been studied empirically in terms of the kind of decision mechanisms involved in the voters’ perspective. In this study in order to shed a light on management election process taking place optionally in higher education institutions for dean and chairperson positions and new election system proposals, an empirical research is conducted in order to determine the criteria taken into consideration by faculty members for their voting decisions in the candidate rector elections. For this purpose, the preference of the criteria effecting the voting decision was calculated using Fuzzy AHP method with two different approaches. Next, the evaluations of the criteria in terms of the faculty members’ academic titles are investigated and compared to each other. According to the results obtained from the sample, it is determined that the rank order of criteria remains the same in terms of all academic titles; however, preference value of the criteria differs across titles.

Kaynakça

  • Arap, S. K. (2011). “Türkiye’de Rektör Belirleme Süreci ve “Mütevelli Heyeti” Tartışmaları”. Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 6(16), 1–32.
  • Bahurmoz, A. M. (2006). “The analytic hierarchy process: a methodology for win-win management”. JKAU: Econ. & Adm, 20(1), 3–16.
  • Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F. ve Mcphee, W. N. (1954). Voting: a study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Bew, R. ve Fields, R. (2012). Voting decisions at US mutual funds: How investors really use proxy advisers, IRRC Institute.
  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. ve Stokes, D. E. (1960). The american voter. New York: Willey.
  • Chang, D.-Y. (1996). “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
  • Choi, S., Fisch, J. ve Kahan, M. (2013). “Who Calls the Shots: How Mutual Funds Vote on Director Elections”. Harvard Business Law Review, 3, 35-81.
  • Csutora, R. ve Buckley, J. J. (2001). “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The Lamda-Max method”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120, 181-195.
  • Çelik, Z. ve Bekir, S. (2014). “Yükseköğretim sistemlerinin yönetimi ve üniversite özerkliği: Küresel eğilimler ve Türkiye örneği”. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 4(1), 18–27.
  • Doğramacı, İ. (2007). Türkiye’de ve dünyada yükseköğretim yönetimi. Ankara: Meteksan A.Ş.
  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
  • Durán, O. ve Aguilo, J. (2008). “Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach”. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1787–1794.
  • Erdoğmuş, N. (2014). “Türkiye’de Üniversite Rektörlerinin Sosyo-Demografik Özellikleri ve Kariyer Hazırlıkları”. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 4(1), 44–53.
  • Hammer, T. H. ve Berman, M. (1981). “The role of noneconomic factors in faculty union voting”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 415–421.
  • Hemmasi, M. ve Graf, L. A. (1993). “Determinants of faculty voting behavior in union representation elections: A multivariate model”. Journal of Management, 19(1), 13–32.
  • Iliev, P., Lins, K. V., Miller, D. P. ve Roth, L. (2015). “Shareholder Voting and Corporate Governance Around the World”. Review of Financial Studies, 28(8), 2167–2202.
  • Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z. ve Tam, S. (2001). “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design”. Expert Systems, 18(1), 32–42.
  • Martinez, A. D., Fiorito, J. ve Ferris, G. R. (2011). “Solidarity Revisited: Group-level Effects on Individual-level Union Voting”. Journal of Labor Research, 32(1), 61–74.
  • Mikhailov, L. (2003). “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 365-385.
  • Mutlu, L. (2009). Devlet ve vakıf üniversiteleri: Rektör seçiminin önemi. İstanbul: Yalın Yayıncılık.
  • Önüt, S., Soner Kara, S. ve Efendigil, T. (2008). “A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection”. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19(4), 443–453.
  • Royes, G. F. ve Bastos, R. C. (2001). “Political analysis using fuzzy MCDM”. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 11(1,2), 53–64.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1995). Decision making for leaders: the analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
  • Saaty, T. L. ve Ozdemir, M. S. (2003). “Why the magic number seven plus or minus two”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38(3–4), 233–244.
  • Sato, Y. (2005). “Questionnaire design for survey research: Employing weighting method”. Içinde Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
  • Sato, Y. (2009). “How to Measure Human Perception in Survey Questionnaires”. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1(2).
  • Scott, G., Bell, S., Coates, H. ve Grebennikov, L. (2010). “Australian higher education leaders in times of change: The role of ProVice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(4), 401-418.
  • Summers, T. P., Betton, J. H. ve Decotiis, T. A. (1986). “Voting For and Against Unions: A Decision Model”. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 643–655.
  • Traugott, W. M. ve Lavrakas, J. P. (2000). The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, 2ed. New York: Chatham House Publishers, Seven Bridges Press, LLC.
  • Vaidya, O. S. ve Kumar, S. (2006). “Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
  • Laarhoven, P. J. M. ve Pedrycz, W. (1983). “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 199–227.
  • Wang, Y.-M., Luo, Y. ve Hua, Z. (2008). “On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735–747.
  • Whitchurch, C. (2007). “Who do they think they are? The changing identities of professional administrators and managers in UK higher education”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 159-171.
  • Zalesny, M. D. (1985). “Comparison of economic and noneconomic factors in predicting faculty vote preference in a union representation election”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 243–256.
Toplam 36 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

V. Alpagut Yavuz

Yayımlanma Tarihi 21 Nisan 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Yavuz, V. A. (2017). Determination of the Importance of Criteria Effecting Voting Decision in Management Election in Higher Education Institutions Using Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Management and Economics, 24(1), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.307532