Akademik Örgütlerde Üstlenilen ‹nformal Roller Üzerine Nitel Bir Çal›flma

Akademisyenlerin akademik örgütlerde üstlendikleri ve sergiledikleri infor- mal rolleri tespit etmek, akademik örgütlerde informal rollerin ortaya ç›kt›- ¤› durumlar› belirlemek, informal rol belirleyicileri ve informal rollerin so- nuçlar›n› akademisyen, ö¤renci, çal›fl›lan kurum ve toplum aç›s›ndan de¤er- lendirmek bu çal›flman›n amac›n› oluflturmaktad›r. Akademik örgütlerde ser- gilenen informal rollerin belirlenmesine yönelik bu çal›flma nitel araflt›rma desenlerinden fenomenolojik analiz ile dizayn edilmifltir. Veriler alanyaz›n taramas›, uzman görüflleri ve pilot uygulamaya dayal› olarak oluflturulan yar› yap›land›r›lm›fl bireysel görüflme formu ile toplanm›fl; yorumlay›c› fenome- nolojik yaklafl›m kullan›larak kodlanm›flt›r. Çal›flma grubu, Süleyman Demi- rel Üniversitesinde çal›flan 23 gönüllü akademisyenden oluflmaktad›r. Yo- rumlay›c› fenomenolojik analizler sonucunda; informal rollerin ortaya ç›kt›- ¤› durumlar, belirleyicileri, üstlenilen/sergilenen informal roller, informal rolleri sergilemenin sonuçlar› olmak üzere dört temaya ulafl›lm›flt›r. Akade- misyenler bir yandan mentörlük yapma, aile gibi olma, ilham kayna¤› olma, akademik ve sosyal anlamda çal›fl›lan kurumdakilere destek olma, bilgiyi pay- laflma, kanaat önderi olma, topluma katk› sa¤lama, toplumu ayd›nlatma gibi birtak›m olumlu roller üstlenmektedir. Di¤er taraftan umursamazl›k, istis- mar etme, etik d›fl› davranma, kaytarma, tiranl›k, akademik bencillik, akade- mik kibir, fildifli kulelerde konumlanma, umut tacirli¤i gibi de birtak›m olumsuz rolleri üstlendikleri ortaya ç›km›flt›r. Akademisyenin kiflilik özellik- lerinin informal rollerin en önemli belirleyicisi oldu¤u; kurumsal ve akade- mik iliflkilerin, ayn› siyasi, dini grup, memlekete mensubiyet gibi durumlar›n informal rollere zemin haz›rlad›¤› tespit edilmifltir. Akademik örgütlerde üst- lenilen olumlu informal roller paylafl›m kültürünün oluflmas›, manevi haz, ö¤rencinin baflar›s›nda art›fl, akademisyenin toplumla kaynaflmas› gibi du- rumlarla sonuçlanm›flt›r. Akademisyenin olumsuz informal rolleri sergileme- si ise bireysel verimsizli¤e, ö¤rencide motivasyon kayb›na, örgütte huzursuz ortam›n oluflmas›na, toplumdan soyutlanmaya neden olmaktad›r.

A Qualitative Study on Informal Roles Assumed in Academic Organizations

This study aims to identify the informal roles that academics play and dis- play in academic organizations, to identify situations where informal roles emerge in academic organizations, and to evaluate the informal role deter- minants and the results of informal roles in terms of academic staff, students, institution, and society. It was designed as a phenomenological study, which is one of the qualitative research designs. The data were collected by review- ing the related literature, consulting expert opinions, and employing a semi- structured interview form after it was piloted first; and then the data were coded by using the interpretive phenomenological approach. The study group consists of 23 volunteer academics working at Süleyman Demirel University. The interpretive phenomenological analysis revealed four themes: situations where informal roles emerged, their determinants, the informational roles undertaken/displayed, and the results of displaying informal roles. On the one hand, academics take some positive roles such as mentoring, acting like a family member, inspiring others, supporting others academically and socially, sharing information, being a opinion leader, con- tributing to society, and enlightening the society. On the other hand, aca- demics were also found to play some negative roles that involve indifference, abuse, unethical behavior, slacking, tyranny, academic selfishness, academic arrogance, positioning themselves in ivory towers, and mongering hope. Academics’ personality traits were identified to be the most important deter- minants of informal roles, and institutional/academic relations, being a member in the same political, religious group, or being from the same hometown were found to lay the ground for informal roles. The positive informal roles assumed in academic organizations resulted in creating a cul- ture of sharing, spiritual pleasure, increase in student success, and socializa- tion of the academic. However, the negative informal roles performed in academic organizations resulted in individual inefficiency, loss of motivation in students, uneasiness in the organization, and isolation from the society.

PDF

___

Aleassa, H. M., & Megdadi, O. D. (2014). Workplace bullying and uneth- ical behaviors: A mediating model. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 157–169.
Alkan, A. (2018). Örgütlerde informal güç olgusu: Hastane çal›flanlar› üzerine nitel bir araflt›rma. Yay›mlanmam›fl doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586–598.
Arbak, Y., fianl›, A. Y., & Çakar, U. (2004). ‹flyerinde sapk›n davran›fl: Akademik personel üzerinde yerel bir tan›m ve tipoloji çel›flmas›. Yönetim Araflt›rmalar› Dergisi, 4(1), 5–24.
Ayd›n, ‹. (2016). Akademik etik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Ayd›n, ‹., Alk›n fiahin, S., & Demirkas›mo¤lu, S. (2014). Üniversitelerde karfl›lafl›lan etik d›fl› davran›fllara iliflkin akademisyen görüflleri. Akademik Bak›fl Dergisi, 43, 1–18.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision- making groups. In T. Persons, & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socializa- tion and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Glencoe: The Free Press.
Bektafl, M. (2014). Yönetim tarzlar›n›n örgütlerdeki informal iletiflim kanal- lar›na etkisi: Burdur ili kamu kurumlar› örne¤i. Yay›mlanmam›fl dokto- ra tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bolat, S. (1990). Yüksek ö¤retimde ö¤retim eleman› - ö¤renci iletiflimi. Yay›n- lanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Borges, M. R., Mendes, S., & Motta, C. L. (2002). Improving meetings by identifying informal roles played by participants. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (pp. 368–372). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Büken, N. Ö. (2006). Türkiye örne¤inde akademik dünya ve akademik etik. Hacettepe T›p Dergisi, 37, 164–170.
Carreau, J. M. (2011). Emergence and evolution of informal roles in an inter- dependent group through an outdoor expedition context. School of Graduate Studies, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Cerit, K. (2018). Yönetici-çal›flan iliflkilerinde örgüt d›fl› informal etkileflimler modeli: Nitel bir araflt›rma. Yay›mlanmam›fl doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2011). Informal roles on sport teams. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(1), 19–30.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2010). Coaches’ perspectives of a negative informal role: The cancer within sport teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(4), 420–436.
Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525–45.
Duan, J., Lam, W., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. A. (2010). Leadership justice, negative organizational behaviors, and the mediating effect of affec- tive commitment. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(9), 1287–1296.
Ergün, M., Duman, T., K›ncal, R. Y., & Ar›bafl, S. (1999). ‹deal bir ö¤retim eleman›n›n özellikleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3, 1–11.
Farrell, M. P., Heinemann, G. D., & Schmitt, M. H. (1986). Informal roles, rituals, and styles of humor in interdisciplinary health-care teams-their relationship to stages of group development. International Journal of Small Group Research, 2(2), 143–162.
Farrell, M. P., Schmitt, M. H., & Heinemann, G. (2001). Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(3), 281–295.
Ford, R., & McLaughlin, F. (1985). Nepotism. Personnel Journal, 64(9), 57–60.
Gershenfeld, S. (2014). A review of undergraduate mentoring programs. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 365–391.
Gioscia, V. (1961). A perspective for role theory. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 22(2), 142–150.
Güler, A., Hal›c›o¤lu, M. B., & Taflg›n, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araflt›rma. Ankara: Seçkin Yay›nc›l›k.
Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433–448.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7(1), 53–75.
Homans, G. C. (1950) The human group. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff work- loads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17–30.
‹nanç, B. Y., & Yerlikaya, E. E. (2017). Kiflilik kuramlar›. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A lit- erature review. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 505–532.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1977). Örgütlerin toplumsal psikolojisi (H. Can, & Y. Bayar, Çev.). Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Do¤u Amme ‹daresi Enstitüsü.
Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among univer- sity and college lecturers. British Journal of Guidance Counselling, 32(3), 281–299.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York, NY: Appleton Century Company, Inc.
Lumpkin, A. (2008). Teachers as a role models teaching character and moral virtues. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 79(2), 45–50.
Lunsford, L. G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E. L., & Wuetherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in higher education. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 316–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339–358.
Marshall, G. (1999), Sosyoloji sözlü¤ü (O. Ak›nbay, & D. Kömürcü, Çev.). Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yay›nlar›.
Maya, ‹. (2013). Akademisyenlerin meslek ahlak›na ayk›r› olan davran›fllara iliflkin alg›lar› (ÇOMÜ E¤itim Fakültesi örne¤i). Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(6), 491–509
Mayring, P. (2011). Nitel sosyal araflt›rmaya girifl (A. Gümüfl, & M. S. Durgun, Çev.). Ankara: Bilgesu Yay›nlar›.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591–622.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organi- zations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Niflanyan, S. (2009), Sözlerin soya¤ac›: Ça¤dafl Türkçe’nin etimolojik sözlü¤ü. ‹stanbul: Everest Yay›nlar›.
O’Brien, K. E., & Allen, T. D. (2008). The relative importance of corre- lates of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior using multiple sources of data. Human Performance, 21(1) 62–88.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization- motivated aggression: a research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 225–253.
Oral, B., Avc›, Y. E., & Tösten, R. (2017). Ö¤retim elemanlar›n›n mesle- ki hayatlar›nda karfl›laflt›klar› etik olmayan davran›fllar: Dicle Üniver- sitesi örne¤i. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 16(63),1230–1241.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Özcan, K., Balyer, A., & Servi, T. (2013). Faculty members’ ethical behaviors: A survey based on students’ perceptions at universities in Turkey. International Education Studies, 6(3), 129–142.
Özkanan, A., & Erdem, R. (2015). Yönetimde kay›rmac› uygulamalar üzerine nitel bir çal›flma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi ‹ktisadi ve ‹dari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 7–28.
Parsons, T. (1951) The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organiza- tion’s ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47–61.
P›nar, fi. (2002). Akademisyenlerin etik de¤erleri üzerine bir araflt›rma. Yönetim, 13(43): 5–19.
Poloma, M. M. (2011). Ça¤dafl sosyoloji kuramlar›: Contemporary sociological theory (H. Erbafl, Çev.). Ankara: Palme yay›nc›l›k.
Pope, J. (2000). The TI source book 2000. Confronting corruption: The ele- ments of a national integrity system. Part III, Chapter 21: Conflict of interest, nepotism and cronyism (pp. 195–204). Berlin: Transparency International.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behav- iors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job perform- ance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 5–11.
Sarbin, T. R. (1954). Role theory. In G. A. Allport, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Seyyar, A. (2007). ‹nsan ve toplum bilimleri terimleri ansiklopedik sosyal bil- imler sözlü¤ü. ‹stanbul: De¤iflim Yay›nlar›.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2004). Broadening our understanding of organizational retaliatory behavior. In R. W. Griffin, & A. O’Leary- Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior, 373–402. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 635–637.
Sünbül, A. M. (1996). Ö¤retmen niteli¤i ve ö¤retimdeki rolleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada E¤itim Yönetimi Dergisi, 2(4), 597–608.
fiener, E. (2004). Örgütsel intikam üzerine nitel bir araflt›rma. Yay›mlan- mam›fl doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Tezcan, M. (1970). Sosyolojik yönden köy. Amme ‹daresi Dergisi, 3(3), 151–182.
Tönnies, F. (1944). Cemaat ve cemiyet nazariyesi (Z. F. F›nd›ko¤lu, Çev.). ‹stanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuas›, 9(3–4), 712–748.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). What’s good about revenge? The avenger’s perspective. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 145–160). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Üstün, E. (1969). Bilim, insan ve üniversite. ‹zmir: Ege Üniversitesi, Rek- törlük Yay›n No: 31.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motiva- tional framework. Organization Science, 7(2): 151–165.
Wallace, R. A., & Wolf, A. (2012). Ça¤dafl sosyoloji kuramlar› (L. Elburuz, & M. Rami Ayas, Çev.). Ankara: Do¤ubat› Yay›nlar›.
Wispe, L. G. (1972). Positive forms of social behavior: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28(3), 1–19.
Yaman, E. (2007). Üniversitelerde bir e¤itim yönetimi sorunu olarak ö¤retim eleman›n›n maruz kaldigi informal cezalar: Nitel bir araflt›rma. Yay›mlanmam›fl doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, E¤itim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, ‹stanbul.
Y›lmaz, N. (2016). T›pta uzmanlaflma üzerine nitel bir araflt›rma. Yay›mlan- mam›fl doktora tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 70–85.