SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

The Mediating Role of the Interactional Justice on the Effect of Mushroom Management on Organizational Cynicism

Mantar Yönetim Yaklaşımının Örgütsel Sinizm Üzerindeki Etkisinde Etkileşim Adaletinin Aracılık Rolü

Ahmet MUMCU
Mehtap ARAS
Pages
300–316
Publication Date
2021-08-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that the mushroom management style affected organizational cynicism sub-dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) positively, and affected interactional justice negatively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study aims to test the mediating role of interactional justice on the effect of mushroom management style on organizational cynicism.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected by survey method from 107 research assistants working in a state university in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that the mushroom management style affected organizational cynicism sub-dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) positively, and affected interactional justice negatively.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Örgütsel Sinizm · Mantar Yönetim · Etkileşimsel Adalet

Abstract

The study aims to test the mediating role of interactional justice on the effect of mushroom management style on organizational cynicism. Data were collected by survey method from 107 research assistants working in a state university in Turkey. The structural equation model (SEM) was used to test the research model. In the study, firstly, the effect of mushroom management style on organizational cynicism was tested. After this step, the mediator variable was included in the research model. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that the mushroom management style affected organizational cynicism sub-dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) positively, and affected interactional justice negatively. However, it was concluded that interactional justice does not have a mediating role in the relationship between mushroom management style and organizational cynicism dimensions.

Özet

Çalışma, mantar yönetimi tarzının örgütsel sinizm üzerindeki etkisinde etkileşimsel adaletin aracı rolünü tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma verileri Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde çalışan 107 araştırma görevlisinden anket yönetim ile toplanmıştır. Araştırma modelini test etmek için yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM) kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada ilk olarak mantar yönetim tarzının örgütsel sinizm üzerindeki etkisi test edilmiştir. Bu adımdan sonra aracı değişken araştırma modeline dahil edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda mantar yönetim tarzının örgütsel sinizm alt boyutlarını (bilişsel, duyuşsal ve davranışsal) pozitif, etkileşimsel adaletini negatif yönde etkilediği sonucuna varılmıştır. Ancak mantar yönetim tarzı ile örgütsel sinizm boyutları arasında kurulan ilişkide etkileşimsel adaletin aracılık rolü olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

MUMCU, A., ARAS, M. (2021). The Mediating Role of the Interactional Justice on the Effect of Mushroom Management on Organizational Cynicism. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 300–316. https://ajindex.com/articles/259766

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Abraham, R. (2000), ‘‘Organizational Cynicism: Bases and Consequences’’, Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 126, No. 3: 269-92.
  2. Abugre, J.B. (2017), ‘‘Relations at Workplace, Cynicism, and Intention to Leave: A Proposed Conceptual Framework for Organisations’’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25, No.2: 198-216.
  3. Andersson, L.M. (1996), ‘‘Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using a Contract Violation Framework’’. Human Relations, Vol. 49, No.11: 1395-1418.
  4. Andersson, L.M.; Bateman, T. S. (1997), ‘‘Cynicism in the Workplace: Some Causes and Effects’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.18, No.5: 449-469.
  5. Aryee, S.; Budhwar, P. S.; Chen, Z. X. (2002), ‘‘Trust as A Mediator of the Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Work Outcomes: Test of A Social Exchange Model’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.23, No.3: 267–285.
  6. Austin, J.T. (2004), ‘‘Cynicism About Organizational Change: An Attribution Process Perspective’’, Psychological Reports. Vol.94: 1421-1434.
  7. Baron, R. M.; Kenny, D. A. (1986), ‘‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Resarch: Conceptual, Strategic, And Statistical Considerations’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No.6: 1173-1182.
  8. Bernerth, J.B.; Armenakis, A.A.; Feild, H.; Walker, H. (2007), ‘‘Justice, Cynicism, and Commitment A Study of Important Organizational Change Variables’’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.43, No.3:303-326.
  9. Bies, R.J., (2001), ‘‘Interactional (In)Justice: The Sacred and the Profane’’, Advances in Organizational Justice, (Eds. J. Greenberg; R. Cropanzano), Stanford University Press, Stanford: 89–118.
  10. Bies, R. J. (2005), ‘‘Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct?’’, Handbook of Organizational Justice, (Eds. J. Greenberg; J. A. Colquitt), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum: 85–112.
  11. Bies, R.J.; D.L. Shapiro (1987), ‘‘Interactional Fairness Judgements: The Influence of Causal Accounts’’, Social Justice Research, Vol.1, No.2:199-218.
  12. Birincioğlu, N.; Tekin, E. (2018), ‘‘Mantar Yönetim Ölçeği Geliştirilmesi Üzerine Bir Çalışma’’, Business and Economics Research Journal, C. 9, S.1:169-185.
  13. Blodgett, J.G.; Hill, D.J.; Tax S.S. (1997), ‘‘The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice on Post Complaint Behavior’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol.73, No.2:185-210.
  14. Bloea, A.; Atwater, L. (2016), Applied Leadership Development: Nine Elements of Leadership Mastery. New York: Taylor