SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

ADAPTATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESS SCALE INTO TURKISH

ÖRGÜTSEL FARKINDALIK ÖLÇEĞİ’Nİ TÜRKÇEYE UYARLAMA ÇALIŞMASI

Canan Koçer Durmaz(İstanbul Okan Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0931-663X
Murat Selim Selvi(TEKIRDAG NAMIK KEMAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9114-3183
Pages
1–14
Publication Date
2024-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, the scale provides a roadmap for organizational development in all environmental conditions such as uncertainty and competition.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to introduce the scale of organizational mindfulness to Turkish literature which was developed by Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007, 2012) and adapted to organizational mindfulness literature from Highly Reliable Organizations Theory by Weick and Sutcliffe (2015).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The survey was applied to 738 people and the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.926.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, the scale provides a roadmap for organizational development in all environmental conditions such as uncertainty and competition.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Güvenilirliği Yüksek Örgütler (GYÖ) · Örgütsel Farkındalık · Ölçek Uyarlama.

Abstract

This study aims to introduce the scale of organizational mindfulness to Turkish literature which was developed by Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007, 2012) and adapted to organizational mindfulness literature from Highly Reliable Organizations Theory by Weick and Sutcliffe (2015). In this context, validity and reliability analyzes were performed. After the translation of the related scale into Turkish, the suitability of language and content was evaluated according to expert opinions. The survey was applied to 738 people and the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.926. As a result of the analysis, it is seen that the scale adapted to Turkish validates the single factor structure of organizational mindfulness scale. This scale shows the feature of being the shortest way with its five-principle mechanism in measuring the basic efficiency of enterprises. Also, the scale provides a roadmap for organizational development in all environmental conditions such as uncertainty and competition.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007, 2012) tarafından geliştirilen ve Weick and Sutcliffe (2015) tarafından güvenilirliği Yüksek Örgütler Teorisi’nden örgütsel farkındalık alanyazınına uyarlanan Örgütsel Farkındalık Ölçeği’ni Türkçe alanyazına tanıtmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. İlgili ölçeğin Türkçeye çevrilmesinin ardından dil ve içerik uygunluğu uzman görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma 738 katılımcıya uygulanmış ve ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı 0,926 olarak saptanmıştır. Analiz sonucuna göre Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin, Örgütsel Farkındalık Ölçeği’nin tek faktörlü yapısını doğruladığı görülmektedir. Bu ölçek, işletmelerin temel etkinliğini ölçmede beş prensipli mekanizması ile en kısa yol olma özelliğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca ölçek, belirsizlik ve rekabet gibi tüm çevresel koşullarda organizasyonel gelişim için bir yol haritası sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Durmaz, C. K., Selvi, M. S. (2024). ADAPTATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL MINDFULNESS SCALE INTO TURKISH. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.47147/ksuiibf.1407109

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: exploratory and confirmatory. G. R. Hancock, & R. O.
  2. Mueller (Dü) içinde, The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (s. 93-114). New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649.
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: istatistik, araştırma deseni, spss uygulamaları ve yorum (9 b.). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
  4. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: spss ve lisrel uygulamaları (4. Baskı). (4 b.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  5. Eroğlu, A. (2008). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. (Ş. Kalaycı, Dü.) Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  6. Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040689.
  7. Gencel, İ. E., & Candan, D. G. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ve yansıtıcı düşünme düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(8), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2211.
  8. Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Theoretical and empirical foundations of mindful schools. W. K.
  9. Hoy, & C. Miskel (Dü) içinde, Educational administration, policy and reform: research and measurement (s. 305-335). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
  10. Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust: necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04273844.
  11. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson.
  12. Kan, A., & Akbaş, A. (2005). Lise öğrencilerinin kimya dersine yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 227-237. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.08969
  13. Kemani, M., Grimby-Ekman, A., Lundgren, J., Sullivan, M., & Lundberg, M. (2019). Factor structure and internal consistency of a Swedish version of the pain catastrophizing scale. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 63(2), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13246
  14. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of behavioural research. New York: HRW - Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  15. Kline, R. (2009). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  16. Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist Journal, 28(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2801_4
  17. Liu-Thompkins, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030204
  18. Magnano, P., Platania, S., Ramaci, T., & Santisi, G. (2017). Validation of the Italian version of the mindfulness organizing scale (mos) in organizational contexts. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology Journal, 24(1), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM24.1.3
  19. McKinniss, S. A. (2015). Case studies of organizational mindfulness and shared governance. Ohio: The Ohio State University Graduate Program in Educational Policy and Leadership, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
  20. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review (24), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.2307/259081
  21. Ndubisi, N. O. (2012). Mindfulness, reliability, pre-emptive conflict handling, customer orientation and outcomes in Malaysia's healthcare sector. Journal of Business Research (65), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.019
  22. Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., Walsh, A. J., & Loakes, J. L. (2015). Trait resilience fosters adaptive coping when control opportunities are high: implications for the motivating potential of active work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 583-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9383-4
  23. Pirson, M., Langer, E., Bodner, T., & Zilcha-Mano, S. (2012). The development and validation of the langer mindfulness scale–enabling a socio-cognitive perspective in mindfulness in organizational contexts. Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper, 1-54.
  24. Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. (2011). Organizational mindfulness in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 188-203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.10.2.zqr188
  25. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the ways of coping questionnarie. Psychological Report, 62(3), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
  26. Sheedy, E. A., Griffin, B., & Barbour, J. P. (2017). A framework and measure for examining risk climate in financial institutions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9424-7
  27. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. USA: Pearson Education Limited.
  28. Vogus, T. J. (2011). Mindful organizing establishing and extending the foundations of highly reliable performance. G. M. Spreitzer, & K. S. Cameron (Dü) içinde, The oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (s. 664-676). New York: Oxford University Press.
  29. Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). The safety organizing scale: development and validation of a behavioral measure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. Medical Care, 45(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000244635.61178.7a
  30. Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2012). Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: a reconciliation and path forward. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 722-735. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0002C.
  31. Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness eastern wisdom and western knowledge. Journal of Management, 15 (3), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291202
  32. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: sustained performance in a complex world (3 b.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Press.
  33. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: CA:Jossey-Bass.
  34. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainity. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
  35. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. (R. S. Sutton, B. V. Shaw, & B. M. Shaw, Dü) Research in Organizational Behaviour, 81-123.
  36. Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2359.
  37. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson.
  38. Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., Walsh, A. J., & Loakes, J. L. (2015). Trait resilience fosters adaptive coping when control opportunities are high: implications for the motivating potential of active work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 583-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9383-4
  39. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. USA: Pearson Education Limited.
  40. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: sustained performance in a complex world (3 b.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Press.
  41. Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., & Yu, X. (2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2359.