SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

The Mediating Role of Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction in the Effect of Digital Leadership on Business Performance

Dijital Liderliğin İş Performansına Etkisinde Örgütsel Özdeşleşme ve İş Tatmininin Aracı Rolü

Emrah Ertonga(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Kars)0009-0002-9660-9963
Onur Oktaysoy(KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8623-614X
Pages
933–953
Publication Date
2026-10-01
🏛️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)

The findings revealed that digital leadership has a significant and positive effect on job performance, organizational identification, and job satisfaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the effect of digital leadership on teachers’ job performance and to determine the mediating roles of organizational identification and job satisfaction in this relationship.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research data were collected through a questionnaire administered to teachers working in public and private educational institutions affiliated with the Kars Provincial Directorate of National Education during the 2025-2026 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that digital leadership has a significant and positive effect on job performance, organizational identification, and job satisfaction.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2025-2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dijital Liderlik · İş Performansı · Örgütsel Özdeşleşme

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the effect of digital leadership on teachers’ job performance and to determine the mediating roles of organizational identification and job satisfaction in this relationship. The research data were collected through a questionnaire administered to teachers working in public and private educational institutions affiliated with the Kars Provincial Directorate of National Education during the 2025-2026 academic year. A total of 406 valid questionnaires were included in the analyses. A quantitative research design was employed, and the data were analyzed using IBM SPSS and AMOS software. The findings revealed that digital leadership has a significant and positive effect on job performance, organizational identification, and job satisfaction. Furthermore, both organizational identification and job satisfaction were found to significantly enhance job performance. The mediation analyses indicated that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between digital leadership and job performance, whereas organizational identification does not have a significant mediating effect.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, dijital liderliğin öğretmenlerin iş performansı üzerindeki etkisini incelemek ve bu ilişkide örgütsel özdeşleşme ile iş tatmininin aracılık rollerini belirlemektir. Araştırma verileri, 2025-2026 eğitim-öğretim yılında Kars İl Millî Eğitim Müdürlüğüne bağlı resmî ve özel eğitim kurumlarında görev yapan öğretmenlerden anket yöntemiyle toplanmış, veri toplama süreci sonunda analize uygun 406 anket değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş, veriler IBM SPSS ve AMOS programları kullanılarak çözümlenip analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, dijital liderliğin iş performansı, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve iş tatmini üzerinde pozitif ve anlamlı etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca örgütsel özdeşleşme ve iş tatmininin iş performansını anlamlı biçimde artırdığı belirlenmiştir. Aracılık analizleri sonucunda iş tatmininin dijital liderlik ile iş performansı arasındaki ilişkide kısmi aracılık rolü üstlendiği, örgütsel özdeşleşmenin ise anlamlı bir aracılık etkisi göstermediği tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ertonga, E., Oktaysoy, O. (2026). The Mediating Role of Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction in the Effect of Digital Leadership on Business Performance. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 933–953. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1959957

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189
  2. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The leadership quarterly, 11(4), 615-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00062-X
  3. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.003
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-28), 2. Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.
  6. Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational administration quarterly, 37(5), 662-683. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969460
  7. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (27. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  9. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Consulting Psychologists Press.
  10. Christopher, B. P. (2024). A decadal review of organizational identification: insights from bibliometric analysis and content analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03990-7
  11. Çöl, G. (2008). Algılanan güçlendirmenin işgören performansı üzerine etkileri. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.31671/dogus.2019.220
  12. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393235
  13. El Sawy, O. A., Kræmmergaard, P., Amsinck, H., & Vinther, A. L. (2016). How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286797-8
  14. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
  15. Evcin, B., & Ceylan, C. (2020). Meta-analysis study on the effect of managers’ leadership behaviors on work performance of employees. In Global Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering and Its Application Areas (pp. 423-436). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76724-2_31
  16. Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 331-372. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340
  17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  18. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers.
  19. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice. McGraw-Hill.
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
  22. Karabey, C. N., & İşcan, Ö. F. (2007). Örgütsel özdeşleşme, örgütsel imaj ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ilişkisi: Bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 231-241. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/30162
  23. Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/strategy-drives-digital-transformation/
  24. Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J., & Andrus, G. R. (2019). The Technology Fallacy: How People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11661.001.0001
  25. Kars İl Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğü (2025). Stratejik Plan. https://kars.meb.gov.tr/www/strateji/icerik/34
  26. Kerse, G. (2017). İşe bağlanma ve politik davranış algısını etkileyen örgütsel faktörler (Doktora tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Tez No. 459866. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  27. Keser, A., & Bilir, B. Ö. (2019). İş tatmini ölçeğinin Türkçe güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 229-239. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/909948
  28. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNall.
  29. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2020). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Routledge.
  30. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper & Brothers.
  31. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
  32. Matsieli, M., & Mutula, S. (2024). COVID-19 and digital transformation in higher education institutions: Towards inclusive and equitable access to quality education. Education Sciences, 14(8), 819. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080819
  33. Mert, M. (2024). Dijital liderlik ve örgütsel çeviklik ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  34. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1
  35. Oktaysoy, O. (2026). Dijital liderliğin iş tatminine etkisinde istismarcı denetim ve yenilikçi davranışın aracı rolü. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (50), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1598214
  36. Oktaysoy, O., Topçuoğlu, E., & Kaygın, E. (2022). A study on digital leadership scale adaptation. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 11(4), 407-425. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2022.60342
  37. Ordu, A., & Nayır, F. (2021). Dijital liderlik nedir? Bir tanım önerisi. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(3), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.946094
  38. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
  39. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2012). Management (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  40. Sabuncuoğlu, Z., & Tüz, M. V. (2008). Örgütsel psikoloji (4. bs.). Bursa: Alfa Aktüel Basım Yayın.
  41. Sağbaş, M., & Erdoğan, F. A. (2022). Digital leadership: A systematic conceptual literature review. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 17–35. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2083776
  42. Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2000). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  43. Stana, R. A., Fischer, L. H., & Nicolajsen, H. W. (2024). Review for future research in digital leadership. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01056. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.01056
  44. Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J.,. & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. The leadership quarterly, 25(5), 1001-1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.05.002
  45. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
  46. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  47. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  48. Topçuoğlu, E., Kavak, O., & Yenikaya, M. A. (2022). İnovatif bir strateji olarak dijital liderliğin teknoloji kabul modeli ile analizi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 24 (42), 569-585. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2437584
  49. Turan-Torun, B., Oktaysoy, O., Kobanoglu, M. S., Topcuoglu, E., Yenikaya, M. A., Topcuoglu, V., & Uygungil-Erdogan, S. (2025). Identification of heavy work investment antecedents: a research on digital leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1588412. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1588412
  50. Tüzün, İ. K., & Çağlar, İ. (2008). Örgütsel özdeşleşme kavramı ve önemi. İş, Güç Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 10(3), 1–15. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/179171
  51. Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e leadership: Identifying the elements of e leadership. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316681446
  52. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
  53. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology in to business transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
  54. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74–85. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/369427
  55. Yildiz, H., & Kavak, O. (2017). The regulatory role of compassion in the influence of the personality trait of responsibility on task and contextual performance. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 4(4), 408-422. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.729
  56. Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835
  57. Zeike, S., Bradbury, K., Lindert, L., & Pfaff, H. (2019). Digital leadership skills and associations with psychological well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142628
  58. Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J.,. & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. The leadership quarterly, 25(5), 1001-1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.05.002