THE EFFECT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS ON SELF-LEADERSHIP

Öz-liderlik, dışsal denetimi bir gereklilik olarak gören ve çalışandan çok lidere odaklanan klasik liderlik yaklaşımlarına bir ikame olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. İş çevresinin değişkenliği ile başa çıkma yöntemlerinden biri olarak değerlendirilmektedir, çünkü, organizasyonların daha yatay ve adaptif olmak için her çalışandan faydalanması gerekmektedir. Öz-liderlik, şans verildiğinde, her çalışanın kendini yönlendirebiliceğini öne süren bir kavramdır. Literatürde, öz-liderlik çoğunlukla kişilik özelliklerinin bir sonucu olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, 212 kişilik bir örnekleme uygulanan bir anket çalışması aracılığıyla bazı bağlamsal faktörlerin- yüksek performanslı iş sistemleri (YPİS) alt uygulamalarının- öz-liderlik üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Sonuçlara göre, başta kararlara katılım olmak üzere iş güvenliği, seçici işe alım ve sonuç odaklı ödüllendirme öz-liderliğe pozitif katkı sağlamaktadır, fakat, beklentilerin aksine, yoğun eğitimin öz-liderliği olumsuz yönde etkilediği görülmektedir. İç mobilitenin, teşvik ödüllerinin ve iş tanımlarının öz-liderlik üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Self-leadership, high-performance work systems, participation in decision making, training

THE EFFECT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS ON SELF-LEADERSHIP

Self-leadership has emerged as a substitute for classical leadership approaches that treat external supervision as a requirement and focus on the leader rather than the employee. It is treated as a way of coping with the instability of the business environment, because organizations should utilize every single employee to be more lateral and adaptive. Self-leadership is a concept which asserts that every single employee can direct herself/ himself when given the opportunity. In literature, self-leadership is majorly considered as an outcome of personality factors. In this paper, the effects of some contextual factors- sub-practices of high-performance work systems (HPWS)- on self-leadership are investigated through a survey conducted on a sample of 212 participants. According to results, participation in decision making,job security, selective staffing and results-oriented appraisal have positive contributions to self-leadership, whereas, contrary to expectations, extensive training is found to affect self-leadership negatively. Internal mobility, incentive rewards and job descriptions have no significant effect on self-leadership.

Keywords:

training, participation in decision making, high-performance work systems, Self-leadership,

PDF

___

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670 – 687.
Bamberger, P., & Meshoulam, I. (2000). Human resource strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Batuk Turan, S. (2018). Self-leadership: Determinants and outcomes. Peter Lang.
Bozkurt, S., Ertemsir, E., Bal, Y. (2014). A study evaluating the validity and reliability of high performance work systems (HPWS) scale in Turkish, Proceedings of 12th International Academic Conference, (pp.187-195), Prague: International Institute of Social and Economic Science.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 135–145.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802– 835.
Furtner, M. R. & Rauthmann, J. F. (2010). Relations between self-leadership and scores on the Big Five. Psychological Reports, 107(2), 339-353.
Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2011). The self-loving self-leader: Examining relations between self-leadership and the Dark Triad. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(3), 369-380.
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180 –190.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis, Pearson.
Houghton, J. D., Bonham, T. W., Neck, C. P., & Singh, K. (2004). The relationship between self-leadership and personality: A comparison of hierarchical factor structures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 427-441.
Houghton, J.D., Dawley, D., & DiLiello, T.C. (2012). The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): A more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 216–232.
Huselid, M. A., (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403.
Lee, J. W., & Bang, H. (2012). High performance work systems, person-organization fit and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Administration Research, 1(2), 129–138.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585-600.
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (2004), Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980) Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361-367.
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Guta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22 (1): 67-72.
Neck, C. P. & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 270-295.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: the mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 523-38.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Self-determination theory and the promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 1-19). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 292-327.
Sun, L. Aryee, S., & Law, K. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior and organizational performance: A relational perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558-577.
Tabak, A., Sığrı, Ü., & Türköz, T. (2009) Öz liderlik (Kendi kendine liderlik) ölçeği Türkçe formunun uyarlama çalışması, 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, (pp.303-309).Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi.
Tomer, J. F. (2001). Understanding high performance work systems: The joint contribution of economics and human resource management. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(1), 63-73.
Wood, S., & Wall, T. D. (2002). Human resource management and business performance. In P. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at work (pp. 351– 374). London: Penguin.
Yazid, Z.N.A, Yahya, W. K., Ishak, M, & Achim, N. (2017). High Performance Work System (HPWS) and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Attitude, Intervarsities Multidisciplinary International Conference 2017.