İş Dünyasında Liderlerin Gözüyle Takipçiler:Tipoloji Belirleme Üzerine Bir Olgubilim Araştırması

İş dünyasındaki yeni trendler,örgüt içinde yeni güç dağılımını şekillendiren yeni eğilimlere uyum sağlamayı ve takipçileri daha iyi anlamayı gerektirir. Takipçileri anlamak hem örgütüoluşturan çoğunluğu hem de lider davranışlarını anlamaya katkı sağlar. Araştırmanın amacı, işdünyasında takipçilik olgusunu anlamaktır. Araştırmanın ana sorunsalı iş dünyasında liderlerin takipçilerini nasıl gördüklerini, nasıl bir takipçi tipi istediklerini ve takipçileriyle ilişkilerini sorgulamaktır. Araştırmada özetle madalyonun diğer yüzü diye tanımlanan takipçilere liderler gözüyle bakılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu İstanbul’da faaliyet gösteren özel şirketlerde çalışan dört uzman, dokuz alt düzey, 10 orta düzey, dört üst düzey olmak üzere toplam 27 yönetici oluşturmaktadır. Veriler 2019 yılı Nisan-Mayıs aylarında toplandığından etik kurul izni alınmamıştır. Araştırmada nitel desenlerden olgubilim kullanılmış, veriler yarı yapılandırılmış mülakat yoluyla toplanmış, toplanan veriler içerik analizi yöntemi ile Nvivo 11 programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz neticesinde; takipçi tipolojileri, lider-takipçi ilişkisi ve takipçi demografi ilişkisi olmak üzere üç tema oluşmuştur. Liderlerin astlarını aktiftakipçi,pasif takipçi ve koşullu takipçi olmak üzere üç tipolojiyle tanımladığı saptanmıştır. Yine lider-takipçi ilişkisi kapsamında liderlerin astlarıyla ilişkilerinde kontrol ve ödül mekanizmalarına ağırlık verdikleri, ayrıca kuşak farklılığınınve cinsiyetin lider-takipçi ilişkisinietkileyen demografik değişkenler olduğu görülmüştür. Bulgular ilgili yazınla tartışılmış ve iş dünyasına ve yöneticilere öneriler sunulmuştur.

Followership in Business Through the Eyes of Leaders:A Phenomology Study on Typology Determination

New trends in the business world require adaptation to new trends shaping the new distribution of power within the organization and a better understanding of followers. This research was conducted to understand the followership. Understanding followers will contribute to understanding both the majority of the personnel in the organization and its leadership behavior. The purpose of the research is to understand the phenomenon of followershipin the business world.The main problematic of the research is to understand how leaders see their followers in the business world, what type of followers they desireand how their relations with their followers. In thisresearch, the followers, who were briefly defined as the other side of the coin, were considered from point of view of leaders. The study group of the research consists of 27 executives, working in private companies operating in Istanbul including four specialists, nine lower-level, 10 mid-level and four top-level managers. Since the data were collected in April-May2019, the ethics committee approvalwas not obtained.In the research, the qualitative design was used, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews, the collected data were analyzed using the content analysis method using the Nvivo 11 program. As a result of the analysis; three themes were formed: follower typologies, leader-follower relationship and follower demography relationship. It has been determined that the leaders define followerswith three typologies as active follower, passive follower and conditional follower. Again, within the scope of the leader-follower relationship, it has been observed that leaders concentrate on control and reward mechanisms in their relations with theirsubordinates, and generation difference and gender are demographic variables that affect the leader-follower relationship. The findings were discussed in the relevant literature and recommendations were made to the business world and managers.

PDF

___

Adair, R. (2008). Developing great leaders, one follower at a time. The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations.CA: Jossey-Bass.37-153.
Anderson, R. (2004). Intuitive inquiry: An epistemology of the heart for scientific inquiry. The Humanistic Psychologist,32(4), 307-341.https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2004.9961758
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1).
Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. The leadership quarterly, 17(2), 190-205.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.NY: Doubleday.
Bjugstad, K.,Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 304.
Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 7, 452-457.
Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles,65, 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0012-7
Braun S, Stegmann S, Hernandez Bark AS, Junker NM, van Dick R. Think manager—think male, think follower—think female: Gender bias in implicit followership theories. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017;47:377–388. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jasp.12445
Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The leadership quarterly, 15(6), 729-769.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The leadership quarterly, 21(3), 543-562.
Catalyst. (2013). Catalyst quick take: Statistical overview of women in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace
Chaleff, I. (2016). In praise of followership style assessments. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(3), 45-48.
Cohen, A. R. (1958). Upward communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 11(1), 41-53.
Courpasson, D.,& Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic Deci, E. L. (1976). The hidden cost of rewards. Organizational Dynamics, 4, 61-72
Cresswell, J. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications, London.
Deluga, R. (1994): “Supervisor Trust Building, Leader-Member Exchange And Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Journal Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 67(4): 315-326.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of management review, 35(4), 627-647.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Favara Jr, L. F. (2009). Putting followership on the map: Examining followership styles and their relationship with job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching(2005-2012), 5(2), 68-77.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gerber, G. L. (1988). Leadership roles and the gender stereotype traits. Sex Roles, 18(11-12), 649-668.
Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage publications.
Glauser, M. J. (1984). Upward information flow in organizations: Review and conceptual analysis. Human Relations, 37(8), 613-643.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic Research and the Problem of Data Reduction 1. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51-70.
Goldsmith, E. B. (2015). Social Influence History and Theories. In Social Influence and Sustainable Consumption(pp. 23-39). Springer, Cham.
Graen, G. And Uhl-Bien, M. (1995): “Relationship-Based Approach To Leadership: Development Of Leader-Member Exchange Theory Of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying A Multi-Level Multi Domain Perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247.
Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?Leadership & organization development journal.24(5): 273–284.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,16, 321–339.
Howel, j & Mendez, M. (2008). Three perspectives on followershipin Riggio, R. Chaleff, I. Lipman-Blumen, J. (eds). The art of followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. Jossey-Bass publications.
Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 1-25.
Işık B.,Yaşar O., İş Dünyasinda Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Üzerine Karma Bir Araştirma,7. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi, 01-02 Kasım 2019, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi, Burdur.
Jean Lipman-Blumen, The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations.Jossey-Bass-A Wiley Imprint,p. 139.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations(2nd ed.)New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, J. (1983). A theory of qualitative methodology. In R. M. Emerson(Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 127−148). Waveland:ProspectHeights, Ill.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.
Kelley, R. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142–148.
Kelley, R. (1992). The Power of Followership. Doubleday, New York.
Kelley, R. E. (1998). Followership in a leadership world. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights onleadership (pp. 170–184). New York: Wiley.
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J.Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership (pp. 5-15).Jossey-Bass.
Latane, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majoritiesand minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438–453.
Lee, T. W., & Lee, T. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizationalresearch.Sage.
Liden, R. C.,& Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of management studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
Morand, D. A. (1996). Dominance, deference, and egalitarianism in organizational interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of power and politeness. Organization Science, 7(5), 544-556.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725.
Newman, M. E., & Leicht, E. A. (2007). Mixture models and exploratory analysis in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(23), 9564-9569.
Oc, Burak., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919-934.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self-and shared leadership in knowledge work.Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140.
Potter E and Rosenbach W (2006) Followers as partners: The spirit of leadership. In: Rosenbach W and Taylor R (eds) Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Priestley, J., & Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to authority--Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm/Response. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 623.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. Sociological perspectives on social psychology,281, 310.
Schriesheim, Chester A., Castro Stephanie L., Zhou, Xiaohua T. ve Yammarino, Francis J., (2001), “The Folly of Theorizing “A” But Testing “B” A Selective Level-of-Analysis Review of Field and a Detailed Leader Member Exchange Illustration”, The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515-551
Shamir, B. (2012). Notes on distance and leadership. In Exploring distance in Leader-follower relationships (pp. 59-80). Routledge.
Sloan, A.,& Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1291-1303.
Steger J, Manners G and Zimmerman T (1982) Following the leader: How to link management style to subordinate personalities. Management Review82(10): 22–28.
Thody, A. (2000). "Followership or Followersheep? An Exploration of the Values of Non-Leaders". Management in Education. (14), 15-20.
Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223-247.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187–210). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management journal, 41(1), 108-119.
Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101-114.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management review, 14(4), 516-531.
Weber, Max (1968). Economy and society. NJ: Bedminster.Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628−652.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yaşar, O. (2019). Yönetici kararları ve bilişsel esnekliği: yöneticiler nasıl karar alıyor? Nörobilim ne diyor? Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 18(71).https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.491522
Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinacy. Harvard Business Review, 43(3), 119–131.hybrids. Organization studies, 24(8), 1231-1260.

Turkish Studies - Economics, Finance, Politics-Cover

ISSN: 2667-5625
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ