MANAGERIAL PROXEMIA IN THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC PERSONNEL’ MOTIVATION
Interaction with subordinates being one of the most important partof the administration activity is a matter that has to be handled carefully foradministrators who wish to indicate that they keep the managerial performanceand efficiency high. If the administrator does not establish and continue aninteraction that operates as trouble-free between himself and his subordinates,he may be subject to major managerial issues.Especially as for public institutions, there are many differing factors thatshape the behaviour of the administrators associated with interaction includingthe management mentality that is adopted by the administrator, his character andexperience; the service that is provided by the institution, the quality and numberof the subordinates, the corporate culture, the informal groups and the politicalimpacts. These factors shape the task-based relationship with his subordinatespersonally with all the other managerial practices apart from interaction in mindand position his subordinates at differing conceptual “managerial distances”according to him depending on his will or as a requirement of the circumstances.In consequence, the administrator can be personally safe, carry on with theadministration as trouble-free and can act “as special to the situation and person.”This study, which has been prepared with the purpose of conceptdevelopment, tries to reveal the quality and causality of the given managerialdistances within the context of public institutions. To this end, the impacts ofthe concept of managerial proxemics” which was developed as an effort toeliminate the conceptual gap in the field literature on the work motivation ofthe civil servants were examined. In order to examine the hypothesis relatingto the fact that there is a linear and strong relationship between the positionof the managerial proxemics field being perceived and the task motivation, aresearch was conducted using the method of face to face survey on the personnelmembers of public institutions that operate in different service areas as part ofthe central and local administration. As a result of the research, the conclusionderived was that the managerial proxemics fields which were perceived by thepersonnel as present had a direct and strong impact on the task motivation.
KAMU KURUMLARINDA YÖNETSEL PROKSEMİ VE PERSONELİN MOTİVASYONUNA ETKİSİ
Yönetim faaliyetinin en önemli unsurlarından birisi olan astlar ile iletişim, yönetsel performansını ve etkinliğini yüksek tutmak isteyen göstermek isteyen yöneticiler için üzerinde dikkatle durulması gereken bir konudur. Yönetici, kendisi ile astları arasında sorunsuz işleyen bir iletişim oluşturmak ve sürdürmez ise büyük yönetsel sorunlar yaşayabilir. Özellikle kamu kurumları söz konusu olduğunda, yöneticilerin iletişime yönelik davranışlarını şekillendiren; yöneticinin benimsediği yönetim anlayışı, karakteri ve tecrübesi; kurumda sunulan hizmet, astların niteliği ve sayısı, kurum kültürü, informel gruplar, siyasi etkiler gibi farklı birçok etken söz konusudur. Bu etkenler, iletişimin yanı sıra tüm diğer yönetsel uygulamalar bakımından astları ile olan görevsel ilişkisini kişi özelinde şekillendirmekte ve astlarını, kendi isteği veya durum gereği olarak kendisine göre farklı kavramsal “yönetsel mesafelerde” konumlandırmaktadır. Yönetici bu sayede kişisel olarak güvende olma, yönetimini rahat sürdürme ve “duruma ve kişiye özel” davranabilmektedir. Kavram geliştirme amaçlı hazırlanan bu çalışma, söz konusu yönetsel mesafelerin niteliğini ve nedenselliğini kamu kurumları bağlamında ortaya koymaya çalışmaktadır. Bu amaçla, alan yazınındaki konu ile ilgili kavramsal boşluğu gidermeye yönelik bir gayret olarak geliştirilen “yönetsel proksemi” kavramının, kamu personelinin çalışma motivasyonuna etkileri incelenmiştir. Algılanan yönetsel proksemik alan konumu ile görev motivasyonu arasındaki doğrusal ve güçlü bir ilişkinin olduğu hipotezini incelemek amacıyla merkezi ve yerel yönetim kapsamında farklı hizmet alanlarında faaliyet gösteren kamu kurumları personeli üzerinde yüz yüze anket yöntemi kullanılarak alan araştırması yürütülmüştür. Araştırma sonucunda personelin bulunduğunu algıladığı yönetsel proksemik alanların, görev motivasyonu üzerinde doğrudan ve güçlü bir etkisinin olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
___
Aiello, J. R. and Aiello, T.C., (1974). The Development Of Personal Space: Proxemic Behavior Of Children 6 Through 16, Human Ecology, 2(3), pp.177-189.Aliakbari, M.; Faraji, E.; Pourshakibaee P., (2011). Investigation Of The Proxemic Behavior Of Iranian Professors And University Students: Effects Of Gender And Status, Journal Of Pragmatics, 43(2011), pp.1392-1402.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P., (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 63(1), pp. 1-18.
Anderson, D., (2001). No-Nonsense Leadership, Century Book Distribution.
Bakan, İ. and Bulut, Y., (2004). Yöneticilerin Uyguladıkları Liderlik Yaklaşımlarına Yönelik Algılamaları: Likert’ in Yönetim Sistemleri Yaklaşımı’na Dayalı Bir Alan Çalışması, I.U. Journal of Faculty of Political Sciences, 31.
Barnard, W. A. and Bell, P. A., (1982). An Unobtrusive Apparatus For Measuring İnterpersonal Distance, Journal of General Psychology, 107, pp.85-90.
Barutçugil, İ., (2004). Organizasyonlarda Duyguların Yönetimi, 2’nd Press, Kariyer Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Beaulieu, C., (2004). Intercultural Study Of Personal Space: A Case Study, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, pp.794-805.
Beer, M. and Walton, R.E., (1990). Harvard Business School Note: Reward Systems and the Role of Compensation, Manage People, Not Personnel, Motivation and Performance Appraisal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, p.15.
Bolat, O. İ.; Bolat, T.; Aytemiz, O. (2009). Güçlendirici Lider Davranışları ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Arasındaki İlişkinin Sosyal Mübadele Kuramından Hareketle İncelenmesi, Journal of Balikesir University Institute of Social Sciences, 12(21), pp.215-239.
Brown, N., (2007). Edward T. Hall: Proxemic Theory, Center for Spatially Integrated Social Sciences (CSISS), University of California.
Çelik, S., (2005). Get Your Face Out Of Mine: Culture-Oriented Distance İn EFL Context. A Helpful Guide For Turkish EFL Teachers. TOMER Language Journal, 28, pp.37-50.
Dess, G., Picken, J.C., (2000). Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century, Organizational Dynamics, p.22.
Dienesch, R. M. and Liden, R. C., 1986. Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development, The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp.618-634.
Dinçer, M., (2004). From The İntercultural Perspective The World Beyond Words, Second International Symposium Communication in the Millennium.
Eren, E., (2016). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi, Beta Press., İstanbul.
Forston, R. F. and Larson, C., (2006). The Dynamics Of Space: An Experimental Study İn Proxemic Behavior Among Latin Americans And North Americans, Journal of Communication 18 (2), pp.109-116.
Frey, B.S. and Osterloh, M., (2002). Successful Management by Motivation, Balancing Instrinsic and Extrinsic Incentives, Springer, Berlin, p.8.
Gershaw, D. A., (2008). Social Studies: Psychology: Proxemics - Too Close For Comfort, http://www.jiskha.com/social_studies/psychology/proxemics.html, Acc. Date: 24.11.2018.
Graen, G. B. ve Scandura, T. A., (1987). Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing, Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, pp.175-208.
Graen, G. B. and Uhl-Bien, M., (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25
Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspectice, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp.219-247.
Griffin, E., (2011). A First Look At Communication Theory, McGraw Hill, New York.
Hall, E. T., (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, New York.
Herodotos, (2009). Tarih. (Çev.: M. Ökmen),Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul.
Hudson, R., (1980). Sociolinguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jiaoqian, B. D., (2004). Application Of The Skills Of Nonverbal Communication İn Classroom Teaching. RTVU ELT Express, ELT Forum.
Kuvaas, B., (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), pp.365-385.
Lambe, J. C.; Wittmann, M. C.; Spekman, R. E., (2001). Social Exchange Theory and Research on Business - toBusiness Relational Exchange, Journal of Business - toBusiness Marketing, 8(3), s.1-36.
Leffler, A.; Gillespie, D.; Conaty, J., (1982). The Effects Of Status Differentiation On Nonverbal Behavior, Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, s.153.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R. T. ve Wayne, S. J., (1997). Leader-Member Exchange Theory: The Past and Potential For The Future, Research in Personel and Human Resources Management, s.47-119.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J. M., (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader-Member Exchange: An Emprical Assesment Through Scale Development, Journal of Management, 24 (1), s.43-72.
Lindler, J.R., (1998). Understanding Employee Motivation, Journal of Extension, 36(3), p.1.
Lunenburg, F. C., (2010). Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Another Perspective on the Leadership Process, International Journal of Management, Business, And Administration, 13(1), s.1-5.
Madden, S. J., (1999). Proxemics And Gender: Where’s The Spatial Gap, Journal of Speech and Theater, 12(4). pp.34-48.
Naidoo, S., (2000). Gender, Ethnicity, İntimacy And Proxemics, http://ccat.sas. upenn.edu/plc/communication/shivana.htm, Acc. Date: 14.12.2018.
Nova, N., (2005). A Review Of How Space Affords Socio-Cognitive Processes During Collaboration, Psychology Journal, 3(2), pp.118-148.
Persson, P., (2003). Understanding Cinema, A Psyschological Theory of Moving Imagery, Cambridge Universty Press, Cambridge.
Remland, M. S. and Jones, T. S., (1995). Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, And Touch: Effects Of Culture, Gender, And Age, Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (3), pp.281-297.
Sert, O., (2006). Semiotic Approach And İts Contributions To English Language Learning And Teaching, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31, pp.106– 114,
Scandura, T., (1999). Rethinking Leader-Member Exchange: An Organizational Justice Perspective, Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), pp.25-40.
Sparrowe, R. T. and Liden, R. C., (1997). Process and Structure in Leader-Member Exchange, The Academy of Management Review, 22(2), pp.522-552.
Şahin, A., (2004). Yönetim Kuramları ve Motivasyon İlişkisi. Journal of Selcuk University Institute of Social Sciences, 11, pp.523-547.
Tiljander, C., (2007). Social Gender Norms In Body Language: The Construction Of Stereotyped Gender Differences In Body Language In The American Sitcom Friends, http://kau.diva-ortal.org/smash/get/diva2:5539/FULLTEXT01, Acc.Date: 31.10.2018.
Watson, M. and Graves, T. D., (1966). Quantitative Research In Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologies, 68, pp.971-981.
Watson, M.,(1970). Proxemic Behavior, Across-Cultural Study, Mouton, The Haque.
Yıldız, S. M.,(2011). Spor Hizmeti Sunan Kamu Kurumlarında Lider Üye Etkileşimi ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı İlişkisi, S.U. BES Science Journal, pp.323-329.
Zhu, W.; May, D.R.; Avolio, B.J., (2004). The Impact of Ethical Leadership Beahvior on Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Psychological Empowerment and Authencity, Journal of Leadership and Organizaional Studies, 11(1), pp.20.
- ISSN: 1300-3216
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 1928
- Yayıncı: İçişleri Bakanlığı
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
KUZEY KIBRIS TÜRK CUMHURİYETİ’NDE POLİS MEŞRUİYETİ VE POLİSLE İŞBİRLİĞİ
Mehmet Ali TEKİNER, Cem KAYABAŞI
SEÇİM SİSTEMLERİNİN ETKİN PARTİ SAYISI VE ORANTISIZLIK DERECESİNE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ, 1950-2018
CAM TAVAN SENDROMU VE BÖLGESEL BOYUT: BİR KAMU BANKASI ÖRNEĞİ
MANAGERIAL PROXEMIA IN THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC PERSONNEL’ MOTIVATION
KAMU KURUMLARI VE ÇALIŞANLARI İÇİN BİREYSEL PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRME VE YÖNETİM SİSTEMİ ÇERÇEVESİ