Journals / Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

The Perceptions of the Faculty Members employed in the Education Faculties of one State and one Private University of TRNC on the Organizational Identity of their Faculties

KKTC’DE BİR DEVLET VE BİR ÖZEL ÜNİVERSİTENİN EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİNİN ÖRGÜT KİMLİKLERİNE YÖNELİK FAKÜLTE ÜYELERİNİN GÖRÜŞLERİ

Pages
193–208
Publication Date
2016-02-20
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)

The results in general showed some similarities and differences in the organizational identities of the private and the state universities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this reseach is to examine the ideas of the faculty members, who are employed in the education faculties of one state and one private university in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), on the organizational identity of their faculties in the academic year of 2014-2015.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of the study included 14 faculty members (associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers and research assistants).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results in general showed some similarities and differences in the organizational identities of the private and the state universities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014-2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:örgüt kimliği · özdeşleşme · amaç ve değer paylaşımı

Abstract

The aim of this reseach is to examine the ideas of the faculty members, who are employed in the education faculties of one state and one private university in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), on the organizational identity of their faculties in the academic year of 2014-2015. The sample of the study included 14 faculty members (associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers and research assistants). The data were collected through semi structured interviews and analysed by using content analysis method. The results of the study revealed some subcategoties under the main categories of “identify”, “sharing of purpose and value”, “communication” and “images”. The results in general showed some similarities and differences in the organizational identities of the private and the state universities.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, 2014-2015 eğitim-öğretim yılında KKTC’de bulunan bir özel ve bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinde görev yapan fakülte üyelerinin fakültelerinin örgüt kimliğine yönelik görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırmaya doçent, yardımcı doçent, doktor, öğretim görevlisi ve araştırma görevlisi olan 14 fakülte üyesi katılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yolu ile toplanmış, toplanan veriler içerik analizi yolu ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda fakülte üyelerinin örgüt kimliğine ilişkin birçok ortak konu ortaya çıkmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, özdeşleşme, amaç ve değer paylaşımı, iletişim, imajlar kategorileri altında alt kategoriler belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar devlet ve özel üniversitenin örgütsel kimliğinde bazı benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALASYA, M., FİDAN, S., SİLMAN, F. (2016). The Perceptions of the Faculty Members employed in the Education Faculties of one State and one Private University of TRNC on the Organizational Identity of their Faculties. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 193–208. https://ajindex.com/articles/785436

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Ashforth, E. S., Harrison, H. ve Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management. 34 (3), 325-374.
  2. Ağlargöz, O. (2011). Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi ve Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi örgütsel kimliklerinin fenomenografik durum çalışmalarıyla analizi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi,
  3. Eskişehir. Albert, S. ve Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behavior (Ed: L.L. Cummings ve M.M. Staw). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 7(7), ss. 263-295.
  4. Altun, S. (2001). Örgüt Sağlığı. Ankara:
  5. Nobel Yayınları.
  6. Argon, T. ve Ertürk, R. (2013). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin içsel motivasyonları ve örgütsel kimliğe yönelik algıları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 19, (2), ss:159-179.
  7. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in higher education, 32 (6), 693-710. doi: 10. 1080/03075070701685114 Cherim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: a communication based perspective. Human Relations, 55, 1117-1137.
  8. Çobanoğlu, F. (2008). İlköğretim okullarında örgütsel kimlik ve örgütsel etkililik (Yayımlanmamış dok- tora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  9. Ankara.
  10. Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review. Interna- tional Journal of Management Reviews, 7 (4), 207–230.
  11. Edwards, M. R ve Peccei R. (2007). Organizational identification: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16 (1), 25–57.
  12. Elsbach, K. ve Kramer, R. (1996). Members response to organizational identity threaths: encounte- ring and countering the Business Week rankings. Admistrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442-476.
  13. Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16,14-21.
  14. Hatch, M. ve Schultz, M. (2002). “The Dynamics Of Organizational Identity”, Human Relations, 55 (8), 989-1005. Kärreman, D. ve Alvesson, M. (2001). Making newsmakers: conversational identity at work. Organi- zation Studies, 22(1), 59-89.
  15. Kramer, G. E. ve Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational İdentification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.
  16. Larson, G. S. ve Pepper, G. L. (2003). Strategies for managing multiple organizational identificati- ons. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 (4), 528-55