Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021   IUP :10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021    Tam Metin (PDF)

Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Mehmet Nasih TağDuygu Hıdıroğlu

Çalışanların iş tatminini ve dolayısıyla motivasyon ve performanslarını etkileyen en önemli faktörlerden biri liderlik işlevi olan yöneticilerin sergiledikleri liderlik tarzıdır. Bu çalışmada kaymakamların liderlik özellik ve davranışlarının en yakın astları olan yazı işleri müdürleri tarafından nasıl algılandığı ve bu algının yazı işleri müdürlerinin iş tatmini ile ilişkisi incelenmektedir. Bir anket aracılığıyla 111 kaymakamlıktan elde edilen veriler kaymakamların liderlik tarzı ile yazı işleri müdürlerinin iş tatmini arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. İlçe düzeyinde faaliyet gösteren kamu kurumlarının performansının kaymakamın karar ve yönetim uygulamaları ile yakından ilişkili olduğu dikkate alındığında, bu sonuç kaymakamların liderlik tarzının sadece çalışanların motivasyonunu değil, aynı zamanda devlet kurumlarının da bürokratik etkinliğini etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

DOI :10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021   IUP :10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021    Tam Metin (PDF)

Does Perceived Leadership Style of District Governors Affect Employees’ Job Satisfaction? An Empirical Examination

Mehmet Nasih TağDuygu Hıdıroğlu

One of the factors that affect employees’ job satisfaction and hence their motivation and performance is their manager’s leadership style. This study examines how district governors’ leadership traits and behaviors are perceived by their chiefs of staff, and the relationship between the governors’ perceived leadership style and their chiefs of staff’s job satisfaction. Survey data from 111 district governorships shows that there is a relationship between district governors’ leadership style and their chiefs of staff’s job satisfaction. This result suggests that the leadership behavior of district governors is a crucial determinant of not only the employees’ motivation but also the bureaucratic efficiency of the government, given that all governmental offices at the district level operate under the supervision of the district governor.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Introduction

According to a recent global survey by Gallup, overall 85% of employees worldwide are not engaged at their work. Obviously, the low level of engagement results in lower level of innovation, lost productivity, and low profitability. An important result of this survey is that current management and leadership practices are among the major causes behind low levels of employee engagement. Moreover, it appears that employees’ perception of their leaders’ behavior and their exchange with their leaders determine their work engagement (Gallup, Inc., 2017). These findings underscore the importance of leadership style with respect to employees’ behavior, job satisfaction and performance. This paper examines how district governors’ leadership traits and behaviors are perceived by their chiefs of staff, and the relationship between the governors’ perceived leadership styles and their chiefs of staff’s job satisfaction. District governors occupy the highest level of governmental position in a district and are responsible from administering and coordinating the activities of governmental offices. Given that the performance of the governmental bureaucracy at the district level is closely related to the job engagement (i.e., behavior and attitudes) of employees, a district governor’s leadership style and capacity to influence employees have an enormous impact on the public welfare. So, how does the leadership style of a district governor affect employees’ job satisfaction? Despite the abundance of scholarship on leadership, effective leadership style and behaviors remain largely elusive. On the other hand, a plethora of leadership models enables us to examine the linkage between leadership style and employees’ behavior and attitudes. An important consequence of leadership behavior with respect to employees’ attitudes is job satisfaction (Braun et al., 2013; Lok and Crawford, 2003). An increase in job satisfaction is expected to lead to higher level of motivation and hence higher job performance (Riketta, 2002). Despite this, there is a dearth of research on how the leadership styles of district governors in Turkey affect employees’ job attitudes and behaviors. With few exceptions, most research on district governorships have been exploratory in nature. In this paper, drawing on leadership models of Avoilo and Bass (1988), Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999), and Bass (1985), we develop and test a conceptual framework that links a chief of staff’s job satisfaction to a governor’s leadership behaviors at district governorships. We examine four leadership behaviors or styles: transformational leadership, reward oriented transactional leadership, management by exception oriented transactional leadership and passive-avoidant leadership.


Data and Method

To analyze our framework, we collected data by surveying chiefs of staff employed by district governorships across Turkey. A questionnaire was distributed to all attendants of a county-wide chiefs of staff meeting that was held in the city of Antalya in 2015. Of all participants, 209 participated in the survey. However, due to missing answers on some items, our analyses were based on a final sample of 111 observations. Our dependent variable is perceived job satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction, we use the measure developed by Weis et al. (1967). In our analyses, we use two versions of this measure. One version is based on the simple average of the answers to all items in the scale. The other version is based on the rounded (up or down) averages of the answers. So, while the first measure can be considered a continuous one, the second measure is ordinal. Our main independent variables are those that measure leadership behaviors. To measure leadership behaviors, we use the multifactor leadership questionnaire developed by Avolio et al., (1999). Our questionnaire consists of 33 items, which load onto four distinct factors in our confirmatory factor analysis. Based on related literature, we label these factors, which we take as our main independent variables, as follows: transformational leadership, reward oriented transactional leadership, management by exception oriented transactional leadership, and passive-avoidant leadership. In our analyses, we control for several individual characteristics of chiefs of staff. We use both the ordinary least squares and ordered probit regression estimators to analyze our data. Because regression errors are not homoscedastic, we use the heteroskedasticity-robust estimate of the variance-covariance matrix in both regressions. 


Results

About 27% of the participants in our sample report that they are satisfied with their jobs. Our regression results show that there is a positive and significant relationship between transformational leadership behavior and job satisfaction, even after holding several individual level factors constant. Similarly, reward oriented transactional leadership behavior appears to be positively and significantly related to job satisfaction. On the other hand, both management by exception oriented transactional leadership and avoidant leadership are negatively related to job satisfaction, although the coefficient on avoidant leadership is marginally significant, when two-tailed test is used. These results hold for both measures of job satisfaction, though the results are stronger when the ordinal measure, and hence the ordered probit regression, is used. Overall, our results indicate that leadership behavior has a significant impact on employees’ job satisfaction. In addition, our results suggest that even though leaders, such as district governors, in government bureaucracy have limited authority to transform the organizations they manage, their employees are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs when they perceive their leaders to be charismatic, transformative and considerate.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Akkoç, İ., Çalişkan, A., & Turunç, Ö. (2012). Örgütlerde gelişim kültürü ve algılanan örgütsel desteğin iş tatmini ve iş performansına etkisi: Güvenin aracılık rolü. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 105-135. google scholar
  • Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), International leadership symposia series. Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com. google scholar
  • Asencio, H. (2016). Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federal employees. International Review of Public Administration, 21(3), 250-267. google scholar
  • Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K. & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 276–283. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. google scholar
  • Başaran, İ. E. (2004). Yönetimde insan ilişkileri: Yönetsel davranış. Ankara: Nobel. google scholar
  • Baycan, A. (1985). An analysis of the several aspects of job satisfaction between different occupational groups. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi SBE Doktora Tezi, İstanbul. Berber, A. (2000). Dönüşümsel ve etkileşimsel liderlik kavramı, gelişimi ve dönüşümsel liderliğin yönetim ve organizasyon içerisindeki rolü. İÜ İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(36), 1-25. google scholar
  • Bildik, B. (2009). Liderlik tarzları, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi. Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kocaeli. google scholar
  • Börü, D., & Güneşer, B. (2005). Liderlik tarzının çalışanın iş tatmini ile ilişkisi ve lidere olan güvenin bu ilişkideki rolü. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 23(1), 135-156. google scholar
  • Braun, P., Weisweiler, C., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270-283. google scholar
  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York. NY: Harper and Row Publishers. google scholar
  • Chiaburu, D. S. & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? conceptual synthesis and metaanalysis of coworker effect on perceptions, attitudes, OCBS, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. google scholar
  • Christen, M., Iyer, G., & Soberman, D. (2006). Job satisfaction, job performance, and effort: A reexamination using agency theory. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 137-150. google scholar
  • Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Build to last. Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business google scholar
  • Çekmecelioğlu, H. G. (2005). Örgüt ikliminin iş tatmini ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki etkisi: Bir araştırma. CÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 23-39. google scholar
  • Çelik, V., & Özkan, A. (2012). Eǧitim hizmetleri açısından mülki idare amirlerinin liderlik davranışları. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 45(3), 59-80. Çöl, G. (2008). Algılanan güçlendirmenin işgören performansı üzerine etkileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 35-46. google scholar
  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28(3), 195–223 google scholar
  • Erdil, O., Keskin, H., Imamoglu: Z., & Erat: (2004). Yonetim tarzi ve calisma kosullari, arkadaslik ortami ve takdir edilme duygusu ile is tatmini arasindaki iliskiler: Tekstil sektorunde bir uygulama. Doğus Üniversitesi Dergisi, 5(1), 17-26. google scholar
  • Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708-726. Erkutlu, H. V. (2014). Liderlik: Kuramlar ve bakış açıları. Ankara: Efil Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5(3), 277-298. google scholar
  • Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1(1), 149-190. google scholar
  • Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 67-84. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3), 153-158. google scholar
  • Gallup, Inc. (2017). State of the global workplace. http://news.gallup.com/reports/220313/stateglobal-workplace-2017.aspx?utm_source=2013St ateofGlobalWorkplaceReport&utm_medium=201 3SOGWReportLandingPage&utm_campaign=201 3StateofGlobalReport_Redirectto2017page&utm_ content=download2017now_textlink, (Erişim: 25.05.2018). google scholar
  • Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. google scholar
  • Gul, H., & Tasdan, N. (2013). Are sub-governors leaders or bureaucratic managers in Turkey? ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 520-526. google scholar
  • Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J. & Vance, R. J. (2008). Work-unit absenteeism: effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1123– 1245. google scholar
  • Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 35-47. google scholar
  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34. google scholar
  • House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. google scholar
  • Humphrey, E. Nahrgang, J. D. & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. google scholar
  • Ioannidis, J. P., Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2017). The power of bias in economics research. The Economic Journal, 127(605), F236-F265. google scholar
  • Ivancevic, J., & Matteson, M. (1996). Organizational behavior and management. Chicago, IL: Irwin google scholar
  • Ivancevic, J., Konopaske, R. & Matteson, M. (2013). Organizational behavior and management. New York: McGraw-Hill. google scholar
  • İşcan, Ö. F., & Sayın, U. (2010). Örgutsel adalet, iş tatmini ve örgütsel güven arasındaki ilişki. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24(4), 195-216. google scholar
  • Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review, Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. google scholar
  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond selfmanagement: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74. google scholar
  • Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organizational behaviour. Chicago: Irwin. google scholar
  • Lieberman, M. B., Lau, L. J., & Williams, M. D. (1990). Firm-level productivity and management influence: A comparison of US and Japanese automobile producers. Management Science, 36(10), 1193-1215. google scholar
  • Lieberson, & O’Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117-130. google scholar
  • Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321-338. google scholar
  • Morçin, S. E., & Çarıkçı, İ. Dönüştürücü/etkileşimci liderliğin iş tatminine etkisinde örgütsel özdeşleşmenin aracılık rolü: Antalya’daki beş yıldızlı otel işletmeleri örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 97-112. google scholar
  • Naktiyok, A., & Yekeler, K. (2016). Dönüştürücü liderliğin örgütsel bağlılık üzerine etkisinde etkileşimci liderlik davranışlarının rolü: Bir kamu kurumu örneği. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 49(2), 105-143. google scholar
  • Özel, N. (2013). Kadın ve erkek liderlerin sözel iletişim yeterlikleri ve bunun çalışanların iş tutumları üzerine etkileri. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 141-160. google scholar
  • Özutku, H., Ağca, V., & Cevrioğlu, E. (2008). Ledirüye etkileşim teorisi çerçevesinde, yöneticiast etkileşimi ile örgütsel bağlılık boyutları ve iş performansı arasındaki ilişki: Ampirik bir inceleme. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 193-210. google scholar
  • Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 712-721. google scholar
  • Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: problems and prospects. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 104-112. google scholar
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie: B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298. google scholar
  • Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266. google scholar
  • Sun, Y., Gergen, E., Avila, M., & Green, M. (2016). Leadership and job satisfaction: Implications for leaders of accountants. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6(03), 268-275. google scholar
  • Seçilmiş, C., Sarı, Y., & Kılıçlar, A. (2016). Kamu Yönetiminde Mülki İdare Amirlerinin Sergiledikleri Liderlik Tarzlarının Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 117-139. google scholar
  • Serinkan, C. (2008). Liderlik ve motivasyon: Geleneksel ve güncel yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Nobel google scholar
  • Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. google scholar
  • Şahin, A., Taşpınar, Y., Eryeşil, K., & Örselli, E. (2016). Kamu Yönetiminde Liderlik: Yönetici ve Çalışanların Liderlik Algısı. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 18(2), 73-96. google scholar
  • Şengüllendi, M. F., & Şehitoğlu, Y. (2017). Dönüşümcü liderlik ve pozitif psikolojik sermaye ilişkisinde eğitim düzeyinin moderatör rolü. Yıldız Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2), 112-126. google scholar
  • Tağ, M. N. (2011). Vizyon geliştirme. T. Turaboğlu (Ed.), İşletmecililkte güncel konular, (ss. 275304), Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681. google scholar
  • Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. google scholar
  • Tolay, E., Sürgevil, O., & Topoyan, M. (2012). Akademik çalışma ortamında yapısal ve psikolojik güçlendirmenin duygusal bağlılık ve iş doyumu üzerindeki etkileri. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12(4), 449-465. google scholar
  • Top, M., Tarcan, M., Tekingündüz, & Hikmet, N. (2013). An analysis of relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in two Turkish hospitals. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 28(3), 217-241. google scholar
  • Top, M., Akdere, M., & Tarcan, M. (2015). Examining transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in Turkish hospitals: Public servants versus private sector employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(9), 1259-1282. google scholar
  • Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational Leadership Theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 444-451. google scholar
  • Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. google scholar
  • Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (Vol. 110). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. google scholar
  • Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A model of corporate performance as a function of environmental, organizational, and leadership influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 453-470. google scholar
  • Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. google scholar
  • Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of organizational turnover: A reanalysis using a structural equations model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(5), 219-31. google scholar
  • Yıldız, D., & Bozbura, F. T. (2017). Effect of leadermember exchange (LMX) on career capital of employees. Istanbul Business Research, 46, 4958. google scholar
  • Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(4), 414-440. google scholar
  • Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. google scholar
  • Yüksel, İ. (2011). İletişimin iş tatmini üzerindeki etkileri: Bir işletmede yapılan görgül çalışma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6(2), 291306. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Tağ, M.N., & Hıdıroğlu, D. (2018). Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Istanbul Business Research, 47(2), 233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


AMA

Tağ M N, Hıdıroğlu D. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Istanbul Business Research. 2018;47(2):233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


ABNT

Tağ, M.N.; Hıdıroğlu, D. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Istanbul Business Research, [Publisher Location], v. 47, n. 2, p. 233-258, 2018.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Tağ, Mehmet Nasih, and Duygu Hıdıroğlu. 2018. “Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma.” Istanbul Business Research 47, no. 2: 233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


Chicago: Humanities Style

Tağ, Mehmet Nasih, and Duygu Hıdıroğlu. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma.” Istanbul Business Research 47, no. 2 (Oct. 2022): 233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


Harvard: Australian Style

Tağ, MN & Hıdıroğlu, D 2018, 'Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma', Istanbul Business Research, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 233-258, viewed 5 Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Tağ, M.N. and Hıdıroğlu, D. (2018) ‘Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma’, Istanbul Business Research, 47(2), pp. 233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021 (5 Oct. 2022).


MLA

Tağ, Mehmet Nasih, and Duygu Hıdıroğlu. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma.” Istanbul Business Research, vol. 47, no. 2, 2018, pp. 233-258. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


Vancouver

Tağ MN, Hıdıroğlu D. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma. Istanbul Business Research [Internet]. 5 Oct. 2022 [cited 5 Oct. 2022];47(2):233-258. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021 doi: 10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021


ISNAD

Tağ, MehmetNasih - Hıdıroğlu, Duygu. Kaymakamların Algılanan Liderlik Tarzı Çalışanların İş Tatminini Etkiliyor mu? Ampirik Bir Çalışma”. Istanbul Business Research 47/2 (Oct. 2022): 233-258. https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2018.47.02.0021



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim02.07.2018
Kabul29.01.2019

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.