Examining of the relationships between intellectual capital, innovation and self-efficacy

Öz

This research aims to examine the relationship between intellectual capital, innovation and self-efficacy in educational organizations. The universe of the research, in which the relational research model was used, consists of 20514 teachers working in public secondary schools located in the districts on the European Side of Istanbul. The sample group, in which the simple random sampling method was used, consists of 922 teachers. “Intellectual Capital Scale”, “Innovation in Educational Organizations Scale” and “Self-Efficacy Scale” were used to collect the data. SPSS 26 package program was used to analyze the collected data. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis techniques are included. According to the findings obtained in the research, it was seen that the sub-dimensions of intellectual capital were significant predictors of teachers’ perception level regarding innovation, and the most important predictor variable was structural capital. It was determined that the sub-dimensions of intellectual capital were significant predictors of teachers’ perception level regarding self-efficacy, and the most important predictor variable was relational capital. It was seen that the sub-dimensions of innovation were significant predictors of teachers’ perception level regarding self-efficacy, and the most important predictor variable was sensitivity to change. It has been determined that intellectual capital and innovation variables are significant predictors of teachers’ perception level of self-efficacy, and the most important predictor variable is the intellectual capital variable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intellectual Capital
• Innovation
• Self-Efficacy

Entelektüel sermaye, inovasyon ve öz-yetkinlik arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma eğitim örgütlerinde entelektüel sermaye, inovasyon ve öz-yetkinlik arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. İlişkisel araştırma modelinin kullanıldığı araştırmanın evrenini İstanbul ilinin Avrupa Yakası’ndaki ilçelerde bulunan resmi ortaokulda görev yapan 20514 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Basit seçkisiz örnekleme yönteminin kullanıldığı örneklem grubu 922 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Verileri toplamak amacıyla “Entelektüel Sermaye Ölçeği”, “Eğitim Örgütlerinde İnovasyon Ölçeği” ve “Öz-Yetkinlik Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analizi için SPSS 26 paket programı kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, betimsel istatistikler ve çoklu doğrusal regresyon analiz tekniklerine yer verilmiştir. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre, entelektüel sermaye alt boyutlarının öğretmenlerin inovasyona ilişkin algı düzeyinin anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğu, en önemli yordayıcı değişkeninin yapısal sermaye olduğu görülmüştür. Entelektüel sermaye alt boyutlarının öğretmenlerin öz-yetkinliğe ilişkin algı düzeyinin anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğu, en önemli yordayıcı değişkenin ilişkisel sermaye olduğu saptanmıştır. İnovasyon alt boyutlarının öğretmenlerin öz-yetkinliğe ilişkin algı düzeyinin anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğu en önemli yordayıcı değişkeninin değişime duyarlılık olduğu görülmüştür. Entelektüel sermaye ve inovasyon değişkenlerinin öğretmenlerin öz-yetkinliğe ilişkin algı düzeyinin anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğu en önemli yordayıcı değişkeninin ise entelektüel sermaye değişkeni olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entelektüel Sermaye
• İnovasyon
• Öz-yetkinlik

Kaynakça

1. Açık Taşar, S. (2019). The review of the relationship between innovation and intellectual capital on businesses. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 7(4), 23–33. [CrossRef]
2. Akıncı, T. (2017). The effect of high school teachers’ managerial spiritual leadership perceptions on teaching leadership and self-efficacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
3. Alev, S. (2018). A research on the relationship between general selfefficacy perceptions of the teachers and emotional labor behaviours: The mediating role of the impression management tactics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gaziantep University Institute of Educational Sciences. [Turkish]
4. Alpay, A. (2010). The Adaptation Study of General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale to Turkish. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11(2), 113–131. [Turkish]
5. Altun, Ş. (2008). İnovasyonla başarıyı yakalayan Türkler. MediaCat Kitapları. [Turkish]
6. Atalay, M. (2012). The relationship between intellectual capital, innovation and firm performance: A research in automotive supplier industry [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Akdeniz University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
7. Atıcı, M. (2001). Yüksek ve düşük yetkinlik düzeyine sahip öğretmenlerin sınıf yönetimi stratejileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 7(4), 483–499. [Turkish]
8. Baloğlu, N., & Karadağ, E. (2008). Teacher efficacy and Ohio Teacher Efficacy Scale: Adaptation for Turkish culture, language validity and examination of factor structure. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 56, 571–606.

9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy, the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
10. Bandura, A. (2002). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies, (pp. 1–45). Press Syndicate of Cambridge University. [CrossRef]
11. Bardakçı, H. (2019). İnovasyon ve öz yeteneğe dair her şey. Cinius Yayınları. [Turkish]
12. Basım, H. N., Korkmazyürek, H., & Tokat, A. O. (2008). Çalışanların öz-yeterlilik algılamasının yenilikçilik ve risk alma üzerine etkisi: Kamu sektöründe bir araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 121–130. [Turkish]
13. Baydar, F. (2021). The pattern of relations between intellectual capital, learning organization and innovation-oriented structure in educational organizations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. [Turkish] [CrossRef]
14. Bayhan, İ. (2018). The mediating role of social capital and intellectual capital in the effect of leadership behavior on emotional labour and innovative climate: A study in hotel enterprises [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
15. Biçkes, M. D. (2011). The relationships among organizational learning, innovation and firm performance: A study about the mediating effects of innovation at the large-sized businesses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Erciyes University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
16. Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76. [CrossRef]
17. Bucak, A. (2019). Investigation of the relationship between cultural capital and competencies levels of teachers [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Siirt University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
18. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi. [Turkish]
19. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi. [Turkish]
20. Cai, Y., & Tang, R. (2021). School support for teacher innovation: Mediating effects of teacher self-efficacy and moderating effects of trust. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41(2), 100854. [CrossRef]
21. Cevahir, E. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. Kibele Yayınları. [Turkish]
22. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. [CrossRef]
23. Demir, A., & Aküzüm, C. (2023). Innovation scale in educational organizations: Development, validity and reliability study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(4), 616–632. [CrossRef]
24. Demir, E. (2019). The relationship among anatolian high school teachers' intellectual capital perception, academic optimism and schools’ academic achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. [Turkish]
25. Demir, S. (2018). A study on the relationship between intellectual capital and teachers’ job satisfaction. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(3), 205–215. [CrossRef]
26. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden roots. Bontis Harper Collins Publishers.
27. Elitok, U. (2019). Entellektüel sermayenin kurumsal itibar üzerine etkisi ve bankacılık sektöründe bir araştırma [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İnönü University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
28. Flynn, M., Dooley, L., O’Sullivan, D., & Kormikan, K. (2003). Idea management for organisational innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 417–442. [CrossRef]
29. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
30. Gayret, A. (2020). Bilgi ve inovasyon yönetim süreçlerinin firma düzeyinde inovasyon gücüne etkisi: Şişecam ve Corning örneği [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kütahya Dumlupınar University Institute of Graduate Education. [Turkish]
31. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458. [CrossRef]
32. Gökçe Efe, A. (2020). Entelektüel sermayenin örgütsel yenilikçilik üzerine etkisinde değişime direncin düzenleyici rolü [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
33. Han, Y., & Li, D. (2015). Effects of intellectual capital on innovative performance: The role of knowledge-based dynamic capability. Management Decision, 53(1), 40–56. [CrossRef]
34. Harrold, D. (2000). Developing intellectual capital. Control Engineering, 47(9), 63–68.
35. Hsiao, H., Chang, J., Tu, Y., & Chen, S. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy on innovative work behavior for teachers. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 31–36. [CrossRef]
36. Işık, M., & Çiçek, B. (2020). The role of social capital self-efficacy and self-esteem on the entrepreneurship intention from the perspective of planned behaviour theory. Turkish Studies- Economics Finance Politics, 15(1), 185–206. [CrossRef]
37. Karaca Akarsu, C. (2022). The relationship between the school principal’s innovation qualifications and teachers' global competences [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences. [Turkish]
38. Karacan, S. (2004). Entelektüel sermaye ve yönetimi. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 69, 177–199. [Turkish]
39. Karakuş, M., & Çobanoğlu, N. (2013). Measuring intellectual capital in primary schools and examining in terms of some variables. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(4), 158–181. [Turkish]
40. Kelly, A. (2004). The intellectual capital of schools. Measuring and managing knowledge, responsibility and reward: Lessons from the commercial sector. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
41. Kılıç, H. A. (2018). The effect of ambidextrous leadership on team innovation and the role of innovation climate, innovative behavior and self-efficacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
42. Kumar, R., & Uzkurt, C. (2011). Investigating the effects of self efficacy on innovativeness and the moderating impact of cultural dimensions. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 4(1), 1–5.
43. Kunt, O. (2019). The role of satisfaction level of information management systems in the effect of intellectual capital on innovation capability [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bahçeşehir University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
44. Lentjushenkova, O., & Lapina, I. (2014). The classification of the intellectual capital investments of an enterprise. Procedia-Social And Behavioral Sciences, 156, 53–57. [CrossRef]
45. Lofça, İ. (2010). AB müktesebatı uyum çalışmalarında Türk Polis Teşkilatı'nın organizasyonel avantajı: Entellektüel sermaye ve insan kaynakları. In A. H. Aydın (Ed.), Küreselleşme sürecinde kamu yönetiminde eğitim ve araştırma, (pp. 269–289). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Yayınları. [Turkish]
46. Maddux, J. (2002). Self-efficacy. The power of believing you can. Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
47. Matthews, J. H. (2003). Knowledge management and organizational learning: Strategies and practices for innovation. In M. Easterby-Smith (Ed.), Proceedings organizational learning and knowledge, Fifth International Conference, Lancaster University Management School, United Kingdom.
48. Nerdrum, L., & Erikson, T. (2001). Intellectual capital: A human capital perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(2), 127–135. [CrossRef]
49. Obeidat, U., Obeidat, B., Alrowwad, A., Alshurideh, M., Masadeh, R., & Abuhashesh, M. (2021). The effect of intellectual capital on competitive advantage: The mediating role of innovation. Management Science Letters, 11(4), 1331–1344. [CrossRef]
50. Oruç, E. (2020). A theoretical review of organizational attrition. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 66, 319–334. [Turkish]
51. Ramadani, V., & Gerguri, S. (2011). Theoretical framework of ınnovation and competitiveness and ınnovation program in Macedonia. European Journal of Social Science, 23, 268–276.
52. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2022). İlçelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması SEGE-2022 (Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını, 35-8). https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/assets/pdf/birimler/2022-ilce-sege.pdf
53. Sarıçan, E. (2018). Correlation between intellectual capital, innovation and effectiveness at schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Institute of Educational Sciences. [Turkish]
54. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–203. [CrossRef] Seleim, A., Ashour, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Intellectual capital in Egyptian software firms. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5), 332–346. [CrossRef]
55. Snowman, J., & Biehler R. (2006). Psychology applied to teaching. N. Y. Houston Mifflin Company.
56. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Entelektüel sermaye (N. Elhüseyni, Translation Ed.). MESS Yayınları. [Turkish]
57. Sullivan, P. H. (2000). Value driven intellectual capital: How to convert intangible corporate assets into market value. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
58. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
59. Töre, E. (2017). A study on examination of the impacts of intellectual capital on innovative work behavior in the perspectives of knowledge sharing, self-efficacy and internal locus of control [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]
60. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. [CrossRef]
61. TÜSİAD. (2003). Ulusal inovasyon sistemi kavramsak çerçeve, Türkiye incelemesi ve ülke örnekleri. TÜSİAD Yayınları. [Turkish]
62. Tüzünkan, D. (2016). Turizm sektöründe inovasyon (yenilik) ve güncel uygulamalar. In A. S. Döner, A. Akyüz (Eds.), Bilgi Çağında İnovasyon (pp. 111–131). Derin Yayıncılık. [Turkish]
63. Wu, W. Y., Chang, M. L., & Chen, C. W. (2008). Promoting innovation through the accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation. R&D Management, 38(3), 265–277. [CrossRef] Yereli, A.N., & Gerşil, G. (2005). Entelektüel sermayeyi ölçme ve raporlama yöntemleri. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 12(2), 17–29.
64. Yıldız, S. (2010). the effect of intellectual capital on business performance: A research on banking sector [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences. [Turkish]