KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yükseköğretim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3

Türkiye Yükseköğretim Sisteminde Holakrasiyi Benimseme Düzeyinin Değişime Direnç ve İnovatif Davranış Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisinde Örgütsel Yapının Rolü

The Role of Organisational Structure in the Effect of Holacracy Adoption Level on Resistance to Change and Innovative Behaviour Tendency in Türkiye Higher Education System

Emine Şener(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-8903-1684
Merve Turpçu(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3252-0428
Muhammed Maruf(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5388-639X
Sayfa
573–585
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgulara göre, örgütsel yapının holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin yenilikçi davranış üzerindeki etkisinde anlamlı bir aracılık etkisine sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde çalışan akademik personelin holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin değişime direnç ve yenilikçi davranış eğilimi üzerindeki etkisinde örgütsel yapının rolünü analiz etmektir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu doğrultuda, araştırma için etik kurul izni alındıktan sonra çevrimiçi anket formu akademik personele e-posta yoluyla gönderilmiş ve 506 akademik personele ulaşılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgulara göre, örgütsel yapının holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin yenilikçi davranış üzerindeki etkisinde anlamlı bir aracılık etkisine sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Holakrasi Benimseme Düzeyi · Değişime Direnç · Yenilikçi Çalışma Davranışı

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde çalışan akademik personelin holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin değişime direnç ve yenilikçi davranış eğilimi üzerindeki etkisinde örgütsel yapının rolünü analiz etmektir. Çalışmanın evrenini Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde çalışan akademik personel oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama süreci, örneklem seçimi yapılmadan gönüllü akademik personel ile tamamlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, araştırma için etik kurul izni alındıktan sonra çevrimiçi anket formu akademik personele e-posta yoluyla gönderilmiş ve 506 akademik personele ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmada yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve aracılık etki analizi yapılmıştır. Bulgulara göre, örgütsel yapının holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin yenilikçi davranış üzerindeki etkisinde anlamlı bir aracılık etkisine sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Buna göre, üniversiteler akademik personelin örgütsel yapıya yönelik algılarını artırmaya yönelik süreç ve uygulamalar geliştirdikçe, holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin yenilikçi davranış üzerindeki etkisini de artıracaklardır. Ayrıca, örgütsel yapının holakrasiyi benimseme düzeyinin değişime direnç üzerindeki etkisinde aracılık rolü olmadığı belirlenmiştir.

Abstract

This study aims to analyse the role of organizational structure in the effect of the level of adoption of holacracy on resistance to change and innovative behaviour tendency of academic staff in universities in Türkiye. The population of the study consists of academic staff working in universities in Türkiye. The data collection process was completed with volunteer academic staff without sample selection. In this direction, after obtaining the ethics committee’s permission for the research, the online questionnaire form was sent to the academic staff via e-mail, and 506 academic staff were reached. Structural equation modelling and mediation effect analysis were performed. According to the findings, it was concluded that organizational structure has a significant mediating effect on the effect of holacracy adoption level on innovative behaviour. Accordingly, as universities develop processes and practices to increase the perceptions of academic staff towards the organisational structure, they will also increase the effect of the level of adoption of holacracy on innovative behaviour. In addition, it was determined that the organisational structure did not have a mediating role in the effect of the level of adoption of holacracy on resistance to change.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Şener, E., Turpçu, M., Maruf, M. (2025). Türkiye Yükseköğretim Sisteminde Holakrasiyi Benimseme Düzeyinin Değişime Direnç ve İnovatif Davranış Eğilimi Üzerindeki Etkisinde Örgütsel Yapının Rolü. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1547778

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (64)

  1. Ackermann, M., Schell, S., & Kopp, S. (2021). How Mercedes-Benz addresses digital transformation using holacracy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(7), 1285–1299. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2020-0395
  2. Aksoy, I. (2024). Employees’ openness to change, transformational leader and inter organization transparent communication relationship in the context of organizational change. Doğuş University Journal, 25(1), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1329096.
  3. Alwali, J. (2024). Innovative work behavior and psychological empowerment: the importance of inclusive leadership on faculty members in Iraqi higher education institutions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(2), 374-390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2023-0084
  4. Amiri, N. S., Yazdani, H., & Kameli, A. (2017). Effect of organizational climate and structure on innovation performance. In S. Rezaei, L. - P. Dana & V. Ramadani (Eds.), Iranian Entrepreneurship Deciphering the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Iran and in the Iranian Diaspora (pp. 159-178). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50639-5_9
  5. Andersen, J. A. & Jonsson, P. (2006). Does organization structure matter?: On the relationship between structure, functioning and effectiveness. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 3(2), 237-263. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877006000788
  6. Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500303
  7. Aypay, A. (2001). The relationship between organizational structures and faculty roles at colleges and universities [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Vanderbilt University].
  8. Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype: The overwrought claims—and actual promise—of the next generation of self-managed teams. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 38-49.
  9. Boer H., & Gertsen F. (2003). From continuous improvement to continuous innovation: A (retro)(per)spective. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(8), 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003391
  10. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Christensen, C. M. (2006). The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.2006.23
  12. Cheng, S. (2011). Comparisons of competing models between attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10), 149-166.
  13. Cochran, W. G. (2007). Sampling techniques. John Wiley&Sons.
  14. Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2007). How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management-social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.11.001.
  15. Çalışkan, A. (2019). Resistance to change: A scale adaptation study. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 24(2), 237-252.
  16. Çengel, Y. (2011). A new governance model in universities. In D. Günay & E. Öztemel (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Higher Education Congress: New Directions and Challenges (UYK-2011) (pp. 1567–1576). Council of Higher Education.
  17. Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the “new” organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4), i–vi. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635077.
  18. Dedahanov, A. T., Rhee, C. & Yoon, J. (2017). Organizational structure and innovation performance: Is employee innovative behavior a missing link? Career Development International, 22(4), 334-350. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0234.
  19. Ding, X., Feng, L., Huang, Y., & Li, W. (2024). The interactive effects of communication network structure and organizational size on task performance in project-based organizations: the mediating role of bootleg innovation behavior. Buildings, 14, 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010098.
  20. Erdem, A. R. (2015). The critical element differentiating higher education and university: academic strategy. In A. Aypay (Ed.), Higher Education in Türkiye: Field, Scope and Policies (pp. 243-260). Pegem Akademi.
  21. Erol, E., & Ordu, A. (2018). Organizational structure scale-University version. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 775-803. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.775
  22. Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2023). Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices. Türkiye Clinics, 33(1), 210-223.
  23. Farsijani, H., & Samie Nistani, A. (2010). Investigating the integration role between comprehensive quality management and technology management in determination of quality and innovation performance (a study on manufacturing companies of central province). IT Management, 2(4), 117–136.
  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
  25. Furxhi, G. (2021). Employee’s resistance and organizational change factors. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(2), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6. 2 759.
  26. Gigliotti, R. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on academic department chairs: Heightened complexity, accentuated liminality, and competing perceptions of reinvention. Innovative Higher Education,46, 429-444. https://doi.org/ 10. 1007/ s10755- 021- 09545-x.
  27. Gino, F., Staats, B. R., Hall, B. J., & Chang, T. Y. (2013). The morning star company: Self-management at work. Harvard Business School Case, 914-013. Harvard Business School.
  28. Gümüş, S., & Gülmez, G. (2020). Institutional management in higher education: Management process of academic units and problems encountered. Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.016
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  30. Karasaç, F., & Sağın, A. (2019). Turkish higher education system: Access, management and quality. The Journal of European Theoretical and Applied Studies, 7(1), 33-57.
  31. Karataş-Acer, E. (2015). Analysing the expansion of higher education in Türkiye from the perspective of new institutionalism [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University].
  32. Kettering, J. (2020). Holacracy: Core concepts, benefits and limitations. Retrieved June 08, 2024 from https://www.holaspirit.com/blog/holacracy
  33. Kezar, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important lessons from research and practice. American Council on Education. Retrieved June 7, 2024 from https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/SharedLeadership-in-Higher-Education.pdf
  34. Kirkpatrick, D. (2016). The four ‘cracies of the future of work. Retrieved June 11, 2024 from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/four-cracies-future-work-doug-kirkpatrick/
  35. Kor, B. (2016). The mediating effects of self-leadership on perceived entrepreneurial orientation and innovative work behavior in the banking sector. Springer Plus, 5(1), 1829. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3556-8.
  36. Kor, B., Wakkee, I., & Sijde, P. (2021). How to promote managers’ innovative behavior at work: Individual factors and perceptions. Technovation, 99, 102-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102127
  37. Lam, A. (2010). Innovative organizations: Structure, learning and adaptation. In Innovation perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 163–175). BBVA.
  38. Lee, C. C., & Grover, V. (2000). Exploring mediation between environmental and structural attributes: The penetration of communication technologies in manufacturing organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 187–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518261.
  39. Luenendonk, M. (2019). Complete guide to holacracy: Example of Zappos. Retrieved June 2, 2024 from https://www.cleverism.com/complete-guide-to-holacracy-example-of-zappos/
  40. McDaniel, M. M. (2017). Institutional climate and faculty governance in higher education: A shift from capitalist to shared governance models. Workplace, 29, 34–44.
  41. Michavila, F., & Martinez, J. M. (2018). Excellence of universities versus autonomy, funding and accountability. European Review, 26(S1), S48-S56.
  42. Mohamed, T., & Demirel, Y. (2022). Resistance to change and change management in organizations: A comparison study of Libya and Türkiye. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 8(55), 920-939. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JOSHAS.63937.
  43. Mosamim, P., & Ningrum, S. (2020). Holacracy and hierarchy concepts: which one is more effective in an organizational leadership and management system? Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 5(12), 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v5i12.600.
  44. Musselin, C. (2006). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity?: Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839404683-004.
  45. Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. http://dx.doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680.
  46. Pala, O., & Turan, N. (2020). Adaptation study of the innovative behaviour scale (EBTS) to Türkiye. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(3), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.801853.
  47. Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. (1977), Organizational structure, individual attitudes and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/257602.
  48. Putra, R. B., Aima, H., & Yulasmi, Y. (2022). Employee performance through learning & innovation in mediating organizational structure and knowledge oriented leadership. Dinamika Pendidikan, 17(2), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.15294/dp.v17i2.40217.
  49. Rodela, K. C., & Bertrand, M. (2018). Rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Youth, parent, and community leadership for equity and social justice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/ 10. 1177/ 19427 75117 751306.
  50. Rosovsky, H. (2017). University: A dean speaks (S. Ersoy, Trans.). TÜBİTAK Publications.
  51. Schapper, J. M., & Mayson, S. E. (2004) Internationalisation of curricula: An alternative to the Taylorisation of academic work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 189-205, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1360080042000218258.
  52. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4-11, https://doi.org/ 10.12691/ajams-9-1-2.
  53. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass
  54. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  55. Taylor, A. (2017). Perspectives on the university as a business: The corporate management structure, neoliberalism and higher education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 15(1), 108–117. https://doi. org/ 10.1080/13603108.2011.589917.
  56. Turpçu, M. (2024). The adoption of holacracy in higher education: A scale development study. Journal of University Research, 7(3), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1490403.
  57. Uğurlu, C. T. (2014). A study of reliability and validity of informal communication scale. Inonu University Journal of The Faculty of Education, 15(3), 83-100.
  58. Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? external factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679-686.
  59. Wang, L. (2010). Higher education governance and university autonomy in China, Globalisation. Societies and Education, 8(4), 477-495.
  60. Willa, M. G., Al-Kfairyb, M., & Mellorb, R. B. (2019). How organizational structure transforms risky innovations into performance – A computer simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 94, 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2019.03.007.
  61. Vuori, J. (2019). Distributed leadership in the construction of a new higher education campus and community. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(2), 224–240. https:// doi.org/ 10. 1177/ 17411 43217 725322
  62. Yew, S. Y. (2020). Holacracy in action: Zappos experience replicability [Unpublished master’s thesis, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia].
  63. Yılmaz, F., & Cömert, H. (2011). Change and new reality in universities. In D. Günay & E. Öztemel (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on Higher Education: New directions and problems (UYK-2011), 27–29 May 2011, Istanbul (Vol. 2, pp. 1604–1612). Council of Higher Education.
  64. Yurdugül, H. (2007). The effects of different correlation types on goodness-of-fit indices in first order and second order factor analysis for multiple choice test data. Elementary Education Online, 6(1), 154-179.