You are here

Home » Content

YENİLİKÇİ İŞ DAVRANIŞI VE ÇALIŞANLARIN ADALET ALGILARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİLER ÜZERİNE BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE YAPILAN BİR ÇALIŞMA

A Study I n Banking About TheRelationship Between The Fairness Perceptions And The InnovativeWork Behaviour

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Nowadays, technological development affected importantly the strategies of the organizations. On account of the technological developments, it became an obligation to be accessible to development for the organization. Along with the technological developments,individual behaviors in an organization change day by day. One of these changes is innovative work behavior of the employee.One of the important point that the organizations has to consider is the fairness perceptions of the employees. When the employees worked in an organization, they want to be meeted their expectations. When expectations of the employees are meeted with some rewards by the managers in the organization; being fairness perceptions about the reward system became important for the employee.The employees whom the fairness perceptions were satisfied became more desirous to cope with the heavy workload. Thus; they are willingness to solve the problems about their job and are willingness for the innovative work behavior in their organization.In this concept, in the first part of the study, the definitions related to the innovative work behavior and the perceptions of fairness are included with literature review. In the second part, information about the study method is given. Finally, the findings and discussions are given. The most important finding of the study is that is important for the employees to join the organizational processes and that increased behavior of taking responsisbility for gives some help for the innovative work behavior.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Günümüzde teknolojinin hizli gelis imi, örgütlerin stratejilerini de önemli derecede etkilemistir. Teknolojik gelismelere paralel olarak örgütlerin gelismeye açik olmalari zorunluluk haline gelmistir. Bu gelismeler dogrultusunda örgütte yer alan bireylerin davranislarinda da önemli degis iklikler gözlenmektedir. Bu degis ikliklerden biri de isyerindeki yenilikçi is davranisinin ortaya çikmasidir.Örgütlerin önem vermesi gereken bir diger konu ise çalisanlarin adalet algilamalaridir. Çalisanlar örgüt iç inde görevlerini yerine getirirken karsiliginda bazi beklentilerin gerçeklestirilmes ini isterler. Çalisanlarin beklentilerinin, yani çaba-ödül beklentileri, örgüt tarafindan karsilanirken adaletli davranilmasi, çalisanlar açisindan dikkat edilen bir konudur. Adaletli davranilmasi birey açisindan ne kadar önemliyse, örgüt veya grup tarafindan da ayni derecede önem tasimaktadir. Adalet algilari tatmin edilen çalisanlar, agir isyükünün üstesinden gelmek için daha istekli hale gelmektedirler. Böylece isyerindeki sorunlari çözmeye ve yenilikç i is davranislarinda bulunmaya istekli olmaktadirlar.Bu düsünceler isiginda yapilan arastirma asagida sunulmustur. Arastirmanin ilk bölümünde literatürde bulunan adalet algilari ve yenilikç i is davranisi ile ilgili çalisma ve bulgulara yer verilmistir. Ikinc i bölümde ise arastirmanin metodolojisi üzerinde durulmustur. Sonuç bölümünde ise arastirmanin sonuçlari ve tartismalar yer almaktadir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-yenilikci-davranisi-calisanlarin-adalet-algilari-arasindaki-iliskiler-uzerine-bankacilik-sektorunde-yapilan-bir-calisma.pdf
  • 32
167-184
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in Social Exchange: In Advances”, In
Experimental Psychology, Vol.2, edited by L. Berkowitz, 267-299, New
York, NY: Academic Pres
Alexander, S. ve Ruderman, M. (1987), “The role of procedural and
distributive justice in organizational behavior”, Social Justice Research, 1,
177-198
Bies,R. (1985), ”Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of
corporate recruiting”, Paper presented as part of the symposium “Moving
beyond equity theory: New directions in research on justice in
organizations”, at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Chicago.
Bies, R. J. ve Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness”, In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & b.h. Bazerman
(Eds.), Research on Negotiatiton in Organizations, Vol. 1:43-55,
Greenwich, CT:JAI Pres.
Bies, R.J. ve Shapiro, D.L. (1988), “Voice and justification: The influence
on procedural fairness judgements”, Academy of Management Journal,
31:676-685.
Brockner, J.,Grover, S., Read, T. Ve DeWitt, R.L. (1992), “Layoffs, job
insecurity and survivors: work effort: Evidence of an inverted of an
inverted-U relationship”, Academy of Management Journal. 35:413-425.
Brockner. J., Wiesenfeld. B.M. (1996), “An integravite framework for
explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effect of outcomes and
procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, 120:189-208.
Bunce, D ve West, M. (1994), “Changing work environments: Innovating
coping responses to occupation stress”, Work and Stress, 8, 319-331.
Folger, R. (1986), “Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model”,
In H.W. Bierhoff, R.L. Cohen & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in Social
Relations: 145-162, New York: Plenum.
Folger,R. ve Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions”, Academy of
Management Journal, 32,115-130.
KAYNAKLAR
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
182
Gilliand. S.W. (1993), “The perceived fairness of selection systems: An
organizational justice perspective”, Academy of Management Review, 18
(4):694-734.
Gilliland, S.W. (1994), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to a selection system”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:691-
701
Greenberg J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness of performance
evaluations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 712:340-342.
Greenberg, J. (1990a), “Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions
of organizational justice”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111-
157.
Greenberg, J. (1990b), “Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and
tomorrow”, Journal of Management, 16 (2): 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and
informational classes of organizational justice. Injustice in the Workplace:
Approaching Fairness”, In Human Resources Management, edited by R.
Cropanzano, 79-103, Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
James K. Ve Cropanzano, R. ( 1990), “Focus of attention and locus of
control as moderators of fraternal justice effects”, Social Justice Research,
4 : 169-185.
Jannsen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness
and innovative work behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73, 287-302, the British Psychological Society.
Kanter,R. (1998), “When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective
and social conditions for innovation in organizations”, In B.M.Staw ve L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol.10, pp. 169-
211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Konovsky, M.A. ve Cropanzano, R. (1991), “The perceived fairness of
employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 698-707.
Konovsky. M.A. ve Pugh. D.D. (1994), “Citizenship and social exchange”,
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Lee, J. (2001), “Leader-member Exchange, perceived organizational justice
and cooperative commutation”, Management Communication Quarterly,
Vol.14, No.4, 574-589.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
183
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? In
Social Exchange: Advances in theory and research”, edited by K.J. Gergen,
M.S. Greenberg and R.H. Wills, 27-55, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lind, E.A. ve Tyler, T. (1998) “The social Psychology of Procedural
Justice”, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lind E.A., Kanter, R. ve Early, P.C. (1990), “Voice, control and procedural
justice: Instrumental ve non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgments”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5): 952-959.
Lind, E.A. ve Lissak, R.L.(1985), “Apparent impropriety and procedural
fairness jugdements”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21: 19-
29.
Lind, E.A., Kray, L. ve Thompson, L. (1998), “The social contruction of
injustice: Fairness judgements in response to own and others’ infair
treatment by authorities”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 75: 1-22.
Lindquist. T.M. (1995), “Fairness as an antecedent to participative
budgeting: Examining the effects of distributive justice, procedural justice
and referent cognitions of satisfaction and performance”, Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 7 (Fall): 122-147.
Locke, E.A. ve Latham, G.P. (1990), “A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mc Farlin, D.B. ve Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural
justice as predictors of satisfaction wiyh personal and organizational
outcomes”, Academy of Management journal, 35,I 626-637.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 8745-855.
Moorman, R.H. Blakely, G.L. ve Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived
organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice
and organizational citizenship behavior?”, Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 351-357.
Naumann, S.E. ve Bennett, N. (2000), “A case for procedural justice
climate: Development and test of multilevel model”, Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 881-889.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com