Meritokrasi ve Örgütsel Adalet İlişkisinin Kamu Çalışanları Açısından İncelenmesi

Amaç – Meritokrasi, hiç kimsenin köken, din, dil gibi doğuştan gelen ya da sonradan elde edilenkazanımlarına bakmaksızın eşitliği temel olan bir teoridir. Fırsat eşitliğinin olduğu, ayrımcılığın olmadığıve herkesin yetenek ve becerilerine göre değerlendirildiği bir sistemdir. Örgütsel adalet ise, örgüt içerisindekişinin kendisine ya da diğerlerine yönelik tutum ve davranışlardaki hakkaniyet ve adaleteodaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, meritokrasi ve örgütsel adalet arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda,kamu çalışanlarının meritokrasi ve örgütsel adalet algılarının tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem – Kamu kurum ve kuruluşunda çalışan 447 işgörene kolayda örnekleme yöntemi ile 3 aşamalıanket ve ölçek uygulanmıştır. Örneklem tasvir edilen evrenin %40’ını oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmayakatılanlara demografik durumun tespiti amacıyla anket, meritokrasi ve örgütsel adalet algılarının ölçülmesiiçin liyakat ilkesi tercihi ve örgütsel adalet ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Araştırmada nicel araştırmayöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi için tanımlayıcı istatistik, tek yönlüANOVA testi, korelasyon analizi ve regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgular – Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, çalışanların meritokrasi algısı ortalamanın altında kalmıştır. Kamuçalışanlarının fırsat eşitliği ve liyakat ile ilgili algılarının düşük düzeyde olduğu ifade edilebilir. Buna karşın,örgütsel adalet algısı ortalamanın üzerinde hesaplanmıştır. Meritokrasi algısı yükseldikçe örgütsel adaletinde yükseldiği, elde edilen gelirin meritokrasi algısında farklılık oluşturduğu görülmüştür.Tartışma – Kadın çalışanların, erkeklere nazaran örgüt içerisinde fırsat eşitliği ve karar vericilerin adaletlidavranmadıklarına yönelik haklı eleştirileri göz ardı edilmemelidir. İş yerinde fırsat eşitliği,ödüllendirmede hakkaniyet, terfi imkanı, liyakat gibi kavramlara verilen önem, çalışanların adaletduygusuna da olumlu yönden katkı yapacaktır.

An Examination of the Relationship Between Meritocracy and Organizational Justice from the Perspective of Public Employees

Purpose – Meritocracy is a fundamental theory of equality, regardless of the innate or acquired attainmentof any person, such as origin, religion, language. This is a system where there is equal opportunity, nodiscrimination and everyone is evaluated according to their abilities and skills. Organizational justice, onthe other hand, focuses on the equity and justice in attitudes and behaviors towards oneself or others withinthe organization. In this study, the relationship between meritocracy and organizational justice is examined.In this context, it is aimed to determine the perceptions of meritocracy and organizational justice of publicemployees. Design/methodology/approach – A 3-stage questionnaire and scale were applied with random selectionsampling method to 447 employees working in public institutions and organizations. The sample constitutes40% of the population depicted. The questionnaire was applied to the participants in order to determine thedemographic situation, the preference for the merit principle and the organizational justice scale to measureperceptions of meritocracy and organizational justice. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA test,correlation analysis and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Findings – According to the results of the study, the meritocracy perception of the employees was belowthe average. It can be stated that the perception of public employees regarding equality of opportunity andmerit is low. On the other hand, the perception of organizational justice has been calculated above theaverage. It is understood that the higher the perception of meritocracy, the higher the organizational justice.It has also been observed that the income obtained creates a difference in the perception of meritocracy. Discussion – The rightful criticism of female employees regarding the equality of opportunity within theorganization and decision-makers not being fair compared to men should not be ignored. The importancegiven to concepts such as equality of opportunity in the workplace, fairness in rewarding, promotionopportunity and merit will contribute positively to the sense of justice of the employees.

PDF

___

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational Cynicism: Bases and Consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126 (3), 269–292.
Alvarado, L. A. (2010). Dispelling the Meritocracy Myth: Lessons for Higher Education and Student Affairs Educators. The Vermont Connection (31), 10-20.
Babcock, W. A., & Freivogel, W. H. (2015). The SAGE Guide to Key Issues in Mass Media Ethics and Law, London, U.K.: SAGE Publishing.
Bellows, T. J. (2009), Meritocracy and the Singapore Political System, Asian Journal of Political Science, 17(1), 24-44.
Beugré, C.D. & Baron, R. A. (2001). Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 324-339.
Bies, J.B. & Shapiro D.L., (1987). Interactional Fairness Judgments: The Influence of Causal Accounts, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, 199-218.
Braga, P. (2020). Narrative Rhetoric in Representing the British Aristocracy. The British Aristocracy in Popular Culture: Essays on 200 Years of Representations, 218-255.
Byrne S. & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The History of Organizational Justice: The founder speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, 3-26.
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543-676.
Corbett, R. J. (2013), The Fading Promise of a More Meritocratic Society, Perspectives on Political Science, 42(4), 212- 216.
Çolak, M. & Erdost, H.D. (2004), Organizational Justice: A Review of The Literature and Some Suggestions For Future Research, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt:22, Sayı:2, 51- 84.
Davey, L. M., Bobocel, D. R., Hing, L. S. S., & Zanna, M. P. (1999). Preference for the Merit Principle Scale: An individual difference measure of distributive justice preferences. Social Justice Research, 12(3), 223-240.
Flood, P. C., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N., & Pearson, J. (2001). Causes and consequences of psychological contracts among knowledge workers in the high technology and financial services industries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1152-1165.
Greenberg, J., (1990). Looking Fair versus being Fair: Managing Impressions of Organizational Justice, Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 11- 157.
Grund, F. J. (2018). Aristocracy in America: From the Sketch-book of a German Nobleman. University of Missouri Press.
Hobson, J. (2004), The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
Hyter, M. (2004). Meritocracy: responding to the myth. Handbook Of Business Strategy, 5(1), 41-43.
İnce, M. & Gül, H. (2005), Yönetimde Yeni Bir Paradigma: Örgütsel Bağlılık, Çizgi Kitabevi, Konya.
Jepsen, D. M., & Rodwell, J. (2012). Female perceptions of organizational justice. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(6), 723-740.
Joosse, P. (2017). Max Weber’s disciples: Theorizing the charismatic aristocracy. Sociological Theory, 35(4), 334-358.
Mehta, P. B. (2011). Meritocracy and its Discontents. NUJS Law Review, 4(5), 5-13.
Meuret, D. (2002). School equity as a matter of justice. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, & N. Bottani In pursuit of equity in education (pp. 93-111). Springer, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pappas, G. & Tremblay, C. W. (2010). Meritocracy: The Great American Myth? A Look at Gatekeeping in Higher Education, College & University, 86(1), 28-34.
Poocharoen, O., & Brillantes, A. (2013), Meritocracy in Asia Pacific: Status, Issues, and Challenges, Review of Public Personnel Administration,33(2), 140-163.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 142-150.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of management perspectives, 11(1), 48-59.
Reynolds, J., & Xian, H. (2014), Perceptions of Meritocracy in the Land of Opportunity, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 36, 121-137.
Scandura, T.A. (1999). Rethinking Leader-Member Exchange: An Organizational Justice Perspective, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, 25-40.
Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7-27.
Tatli, A., Vassilopoulou, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2013). An unrequited affinity between talent shortages and untapped female potential: The relevance of gender quotas for talent management in high growth potential economies of the Asia Pacific region. International Business Review, 22(3), 539-553.
Theriault, S. M. (2003). Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the Power of the People. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 50-68.
Torun, Y. (2011). Meritokrasi: Adaletin Terazisi mi Yoksa Bir Adalet İllüzyonu mu?. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 7(26), 89- 99.
UKMP, https://www.ukmp.org/our-solutions, erişim tarihi: 13.01.2021
Young, M. (1998). Meritocracy revisited, Society, 35(2), 377-379.
Zhang, Z. (2015), Crowding Out Meritocracy? – Cultural Constraints in Chinese Public Human Resource Management, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(3), 270-282.