Kadın ve erkek yöneticilerin güven özelliklerine ilişkin tutumları: Varsayımsal astlar üzerine bir araştırma

Bu araştırmanın amacı yöneticilerin astlarına güven duymalarında belirleyici olan özelliklere yönelik olarak betimleyici bir çalışma yapmak ve cinsiyete göre güven oluşumundaki farklılıklaşmayı ortaya koymaktır. İlgili yazında, karşı tarafta güvenmeyi sağlayan özellikler ya da güvenin dayanakları başlığı altında dürüstlük, yetkinlik, tutarlılık, sadakat ve açıklık özellikleri yer almaktadır. Bu amaçla çalışmada, Butler ve Cantrel (1984)’in geliştirdiği soru formu yardımıyla, bu özelliklerin var olup olmama veya farklı kombinasyonlarda var olmasına göre, oluşturulan 32 varsayımsal asta duyulan güven düzeyi belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın verileri Ankara’daki iki devlet üniversitesinde İşletme Bölümünde okuyan 114 son sınıf öğrencisinden elde edilmiştir. Araştırmada, güveni oluşturan 5 özelliğin farklı kombinasyonlarda varlığı durumunda güven ortalamaları incelendiğinde, yetkin ancak diğer dört özelliğe sahip olmayan astın, hiçbir özelliğe sahip olmayan bir asttan sonra en az güvenilen ast olduğu ortaya konulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda, astlarda diğer özellikler olmasa da dürüstlük özelliğinin varlığında diğer özelliklere göre daha yüksek güven duyulduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada, güven özelliklerinin farklı kombinasyonlarda varlığı çerçevesinde, cinsiyete göre asta duyulan güven düzeyinde farklılık olduğu, kadınların güvenmek için daha fazla özelliğe gereksinim duydukları, erkeklerin ise hiçbir özelliğin var olmadığı durumlarda dahi kadınlardan daha fazla güven sergiledikleri belirlenmiştir.

The attitudes of male and female managers with regard to trust qualities: A research on hypothetical subordinates

The purpose of this research is to make a descriptive study aiming to ascertain the qualities that are determinant in trust of managers for their subordinates and to determine the differences in building trust according to the genders. In the related literature, under the heading of the qualities that constitute trust for the opponent party or the baselines of trust, integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty and openness features take place. For that purpose, in this study, it was determined whether there are such qualities or the level of reliance placed for 32 hypothetical subordinates in accordance with their existence in different combinations through the question form that was developed by Butler and Cantrel (1984). The data of the research were obtained from 114 graduate students in Business Administration Departments of two state universities in Ankara. In the research, when the means of the trust was examined where 5 qualities that constitute trust in different combinations exist, it was observed that the subordinate who is competent but has no other four qualities was found the least trustworthy subordinate other than the one who has none of those qualities. Also, it was determined that if the subordinates have the property of integrity but have no other property, he is placed more trustwhorthy than other qualities. In the study, it was revealed that within the frame of existence of trust in different combinations, there was a difference in the level of trust for the subordinates according to the gender and that women were in need of more qualities to trust their subordinates and that men presented more trust than women even their subordinates have no qualities.

PDF

___

Brewis, J. ve Linstead, S. (2004). “Gender and Management”. S. Linstead L. Fulpo ve S. Lilley (Eds). Management and Organization-Critical Text, içinde. Palgrave Macmillan, ss.56-92.
Buchan, N.R., Croson, R.T.A. ve Solnıck, S. (2008). “Trust and Gender: An Examination of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 466-476.
Butler, J.K.Jr. ve Cantrell, S. (1984). “A Behavioral Decision Theory Approach to Modeling Dyadic Trust in Superiors and Subordinates”. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.
Butler, J.K.Jr. (1983). “Reciprocity of Trust Between Professionals and Their Secretaries”, Psychological Reports, 53, 411-416.
Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). “Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory”. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643- 663.
Börü, D. (2001). “Örgütlerde Güven Ortamının Yaratılmasında İlk Adım. Güvenilir İnsanlar Kim?”, 9.Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler, http://www.isletme. istanbul.edu.tr/duyurular/kongrebook/15/kongre.html.
Chaudhurı, A. ve Gangadharan, L. (2002). Gender Differennces in Trust and Reciprocity”. Annual Meeting of Economic Science Association, Boston.
Clark, M.C. ve Payne, R.L. (1997). “ The Nature and Structure of Worker’s Trust in Management”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 205-224.
Cook, J. ve Wall, T. (1980). “New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personel Need Nonfulfilment”. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
Deutsch, M. (1968). “Trust and Suspicion”. D.C.Bainland (Ed.). Interpersonal Communication: Survey and Studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 421-438.
Doney, P.M., Canon, J.P. ve Mullen, M.R. (1998). “ Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust”. Academy Of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
Drıscoll,J.W. (1978). “Trust and Participation in Organizational Decision Making as Predictors of Satisfaction”. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44-56.
Erdem, F. (2003), “Örgütsel Yaşamda Güven”. F. Erdem (Ed.). Sosyal Bilimlerde Güven, içinde. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 153-182.
Ferın, D. L. ve Dırks, K. T. (2003). “The Use of Rewards to Increase and Decrease Trust: Mediating Processes and Differential Effects”. Organization Science, 14(1), January- February, 18-31.
Gabarro, J.J. (1978). “The Development of Trust, Influence, and Expectations”. A.G.Athos ve J.J. Gabarro (Eds.). Interpersonal Behavior Communication an Understanding in Relationship içinde. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 290-303.
Johnson-George, C. ve Swap, W.C. (1982). “Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction and Validation of a Scale to Assess Trust in a Specific Other”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (6), 1306-1317.
Jones, G.R. ve George, J. M. (1998). “The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork”. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546.
Kramer, R.M. (2006). “Trust as Situated Cognition: An Ecological Perspective on Trust Decisions”. R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer ve E. Ellgar (Eds). Handbook of Trust Research, içinde. UK: Publishing Limited. ss. 68-84.
Lewıckı, J., McAllıster, D.J. ve Bıes, R.J. (1998). “Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities”. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438 458.
Lewicki, J., Tomlinson, E.C. ve Gıllespıe, N. (2006). “Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theorethical Approaches, Empirical Evidence,and Future Directions”. Journal of Management, 32, 991-1022.
Mayer, R.C., Davıs, J.H. ve Schoorman, F. D. (1995). “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust”. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J.G. ve Zanna, M.P. (1985). “Trust in Close Relationships”. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.
Rousseau,D.M., Sıtkın, S.B., Burt, R.S. ve Camerer, C. (1998). “Not so Different After All: A Cross Discipline View of Trust”. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Rotter, J.B. (1971). “Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust”. American Psychologist, 44, 1-7.
Schındler, P.L. ve C.C. Thomas (1993). “The Structure of Interpersonal Trust in the Workplace”. Psychological Reports, 73, 563-573.
Sheppard, B. ve Sherman, D. (1998). “The Grammar of Trust: A Model and General Implications”. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 422-437.
Tschannen-Moran, M. ve Hoy, W.K. (2000). “A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning and Measurement of Trust”. Review of Educational Research, 70 (4), 547-593.