SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLES: IZMIR PROVINENCE EXAMPLE

İDARİ GÖREVE SAHİP AKADEMİSYENLERİN KİŞİLİK ÖZELLİKLERİ İLE KULLANDIKLARI ÇATIŞMA ÇÖZME STİLLERİ İLİŞKİSİ: İZMİR İLİ ÖRNEĞİ

Serap Şahin
Sedef Gülsüm Aksu
Pages
135–154
Publication Date
2015-12-01
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)

Negative relations were found between openness and dominating; openness and avoiding; conscientiousness and dominating; neuroticism and dominating

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to determine statistical relationship between personality traits of university administrators and conflict resolution styles which used by the university administrators when resolving conflicts that occurred inside of the organization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the research took place in 143 Izmir province’s university administrator academicians of seven public and private universities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Negative relations were found between openness and dominating; openness and avoiding; conscientiousness and dominating; neuroticism and dominating
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çatışma Çözme · Kişilik · Beş Büyük Kişilik Envanteri

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine statistical relationship between personality traits of university administrators and conflict resolution styles which used by the university administrators when resolving conflicts that occurred inside of the organization. For this purpose, the research took place in 143 Izmir province’s university administrator academicians of seven public and private universities. At the result of research, statistically significant and positive relations were found between openness and compromising; agreeableness and obliging, integrating; openness and obliging; conscientiousness and compromising; neuroticism and obliging. Negative relations were found between openness and dominating; openness and avoiding; conscientiousness and dominating; neuroticism and dominating

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, idari göreve sahip akademisyenlerin kişilik özellikleri ile örgüt içindeki çatışmaları çözmek için kullandıkları çatışma çözme stilleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olup olmadığını ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırma, İzmir İli’ndeki 7 devlet ve vakıf üniversitedeki İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi’ne bağlı bölümlerde idari göreve sahip toplam 143 akademisyen üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Araştırma sonucunda, gelişime açıklık ile uzlaşma; uyumluluk ile ödün verme, bütünleştirme, kaçınma; dışadönüklük ile ödün verme; sorumluluk ile uzlaşma; nevrotiklik ile ödün verme arasında pozitif anlamlı, gelişime açıklık ile hükmetme; dışadönüklük ile kaçınma; sorumluluk ile hükmetme; nevrotiklik ile hükmetme arasında ise negatif yönlü anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, S., Aksu, S. G. (2015). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLES: IZMIR PROVINENCE EXAMPLE. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 135–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/74446

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Altmae, S., ve Türk, K. (2008). Conflict Management Modes and Leadership Styles Used By Estonian Managers and Specialists, EBS Review, No 25 2008/09, Pp.61-73.
  2. Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between The Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management Styles, International Journal Of Conflict Management, Vol. 9, No.4, Pp. 336-355.
  3. Basım, H. N., Çetin, F., Ve Tabak, A. (2009). Beş Faktör Kişilik Özelliklerinin İlişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 24(63), 20-34.
  4. Çatışma Çözme Yaklaşımlarıyla Blake, R.R., Ve Mouton, J. (1973).
  5. The Fifth Achievement in Fred, E. Jandt (Ed.), Conflict Resolution Through Communication. New York: Harper & Row. Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A. Ve Lauver, K. J. (2002). The Role Of Personality In Task And Relationship Conflict. Journal Of Personality, 70 (3), 1311-1344.
  6. Buchanan, D.A. Ve Huczynski, A. (2003). Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, Fifth Edition,
  7. Financial Times Management. Costa, P. T., Ve Mccrae, R. R. (1992). Four Ways Five Factors Are Basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.
  8. Costa Jr, P., Terracciano, A., Ve Mccrae, R. R. (2001). Gender Differences in Personality Traits across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five- Factor Model. Annual Review Of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440.
  9. Eren, E. (2013). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. İstanbul:
  10. Beta Basım Yayım. Genç, N. (2007). Meslek Yüksekokulları İçin Yönetim Ve Organizasyon. Ankara:
  11. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative" Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L., Ve Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving Interpersonal Conflict and Reacting To It: The Case Of Agreeableness. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.
  12. Gross, M.A. Ve Guerrero, L.K. (2000). Managing Conflict Appropriately And Effectively: An Application of the Competence Model to Rahim’s Organizational Conflict Styles, The International Journal Of Conflict Management, Vol.11, No.3, And Pp.200-226.
  13. Judge, T. A., ve Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797. Koçel, T. (2011). İşletme Yöneticiliği. 14. Baskı. İstanbul:
  14. Beta Basım. Mccrae, R. Ve Costa, P. (1985). Comparison Of EPI and Psychoticism Scales With Measures