KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2

KİŞİSEL ÖĞRENME VE YARATICILIK: PSİKOLOJİK GÜÇLENDİRMENİN ARACILIK ROLÜ

PERSONAL LEARNING AND CREATIVITY: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT

Aysun Ceylan
Engin Bağış Öztürk(DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5596-4099
Sayfa
323–345
Yayın Tarihi
2020-06-29
🏛️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)

Daha önceki çalışmalar iş yerinde öğrenmenin çalışan yetkinliğini geliştirerek yaratıcılığı etkilediğini göstermektedir. ancak bu çalışmalar iş yerindeki kişiler arası ilişkilere odaklanan kişisel öğrenmeyi ve bunun kapsamlı etkisini dikkate almamaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, kişisel öğrenmenin psikolojik güçlendirme ve yaratıcılık ile ilişkisini incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Daha önceki çalışmalar iş yerinde öğrenmenin çalışan yetkinliğini geliştirerek yaratıcılığı etkilediğini göstermektedir. ancak bu çalışmalar iş yerindeki kişiler arası ilişkilere odaklanan kişisel öğrenmeyi ve bunun kapsamlı etkisini dikkate almamaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Temel olarak kişisel öğrenmenin de önemli bir eğitim konusu olabileceği ve bu tür bir öğrenmenin çalışanların içsel ve otonom motivasyonlarını yükselterek çalışanların yaratıcılığını arttıracağı belirtilmiştir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Kişisel Öğrenme · Psikolojik Güçlendirme · Yaratıcılık

Özet

Bu çalışma, kişisel öğrenmenin psikolojik güçlendirme ve yaratıcılık ile ilişkisini incelemektedir. Daha önceki çalışmalar iş yerinde öğrenmenin çalışan yetkinliğini geliştirerek yaratıcılığı etkilediğini göstermektedir. ancak bu çalışmalar iş yerindeki kişiler arası ilişkilere odaklanan kişisel öğrenmeyi ve bunun kapsamlı etkisini dikkate almamaktadır. Bu araştırma, kişisel öğrenmenin sadece iş yetkinliği ile değil ayrıca işin anlamı, özerkliği ve işteki etki ile ilişkili olacağını iddia etmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma kişisel öğrenmenin psikolojik güçlendirme aracılığıyla yaratıcılık ile ilişkili olacağını savunmaktadır. Bu hipotezi test etmek için araştırma ve geliştirme odaklı şirketlerde çalışanlar üzerinde bir saha araştırması yapılmış ve 107 çalışandan ve 57 yöneticiden soru formu yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Birden fazla kaynak (çalışan, yönetici) kullanılarak toplanan veriler analiz edildiğinde kişisel öğrenmenin psikolojik güçlendirme üzerinden yaratıcılık ile dolaylı ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgular ışığında, teorik ve pratik katkılar tartışılmıştır. Temel olarak kişisel öğrenmenin de önemli bir eğitim konusu olabileceği ve bu tür bir öğrenmenin çalışanların içsel ve otonom motivasyonlarını yükselterek çalışanların yaratıcılığını arttıracağı belirtilmiştir.

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between personal learning and psychological empowerment and creativity. While prior studies have indicated that the workplace learning influences creativity through employee’s enhanced competence, they fail to recognize personal learning, an interpersonal aspect of learning, and its extended effects. The study asserts that personal learning is not only related with competence, but it is also related with the meaning of work, impact and autonomy of the job. Thus, the study hypothesize that personal learning is related to creativity through psychological empowerment. To test this hypothesis, a field survey is conducted on employees working at research and development-oriented firms, and data are collected from 107 employees and 57 superivors through survey forms. By using a multi-source (employee, supervisor) data collection, it is found that personal learning is indirectly related with creativity through psychological empowerment. In the light of these findings, theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Basically, it is noted that personal learning can be considered as an important training topic, and such learning can enhance creativity of employees by increasing their internal and autonomous motivations.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ceylan, A., Öztürk, E. B. (2020). KİŞİSEL ÖĞRENME VE YARATICILIK: PSİKOLOJİK GÜÇLENDİRMENİN ARACILIK ROLÜ. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 323–345. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.568322

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (61)

  1. Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  2. Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921
  3. Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assesing the Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
  4. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
  5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  6. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021
  7. Bliese, P. D., Maltarich, M. A., & Hendricks, J. L. (2018). Back to Basics with Mixed-Effects Models: Nine Take-Away Points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z
  8. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556385
  9. Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2011). The Illusion of Statistical Control. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428817
  10. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903370047
  11. de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Jansen, P., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2009). On the relationships among work characteristics and learning-related behavior: Does age matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 925–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.649
  12. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past With an Eye Toward the Future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
  13. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245
  14. Fonseca, T., de Faria, P., & Lima, F. (2019). Human capital and innovation: the importance of the optimal organizational task structure. Research Policy, 48(3), 616–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.010
  15. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
  16. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513
  17. Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-Efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670890
  18. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16, 250–279. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030507376900167
  19. Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who Is a Mentor? A Review of Evolving Definitions and Implications for Research. Journal of Management, 37(1), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310386227
  20. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504
  21. İpek, İ. (2019). Organizational learning in exporting: A bibliometric analysis and critical review of the empirical research. International Business Review, 28(3), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.11.010
  22. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edition. Guilford Press.
  23. Kwan, H. K., Mao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2010). The impact of role modeling on protégés’ personal learning and work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.009
  24. Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069311
  25. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
  26. Liu, D., & Fu, P. P. (2011). Motivating protégés’ personal learning in teams: A multilevel investigation of autonomy support and autonomy orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024716
  27. Ma, H.-H. (2006). A Synthetic Analysis of the Effectiveness of Single Components and Packages in Creativity Training Programs. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1804_3
  28. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, L. J. (2004). Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901
  29. Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The Value of Intra-organizational Social Capital: How it Fosters Knowledge Transfer, Innovation Performance, and Growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610394301
  30. Merriam, S. B., & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning‐making, adult learning and development: a model with implications for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137960150402
  31. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer Information Seeking: Exploring Types, Modes, Sources, and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589. https://doi.org/10.5465/256592
  32. Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321
  33. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The Role of Mentoring in the Information Gathering Processes of Newcomers during Early Organizational Socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1012
  34. Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
  35. R Core Team. (2016). R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://doi.org/http://www.R-project.org
  36. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Vol. 2nd ed.).
  37. Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.005
  38. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  39. Ryan, M. R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  40. Schermuly, C. C., & Meyer, B. (2016). Good relationships at work: The effects of Leader-Member Exchange and Team-Member Exchange on psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2060
  41. Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549
  42. Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. Retrieved December 13, 2018, from http://quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm
  43. Siu, H. M., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Vingilis, E. (2005). The effect of problem-based learning on nursing students’ perceptions of empowerment. The Journal of Nursing Education, 44(10), 459–469.
  44. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  45. Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2005). Learning at Work: Training and Development. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2004 (pp. 249–289). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013311.ch8
  46. Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & Lebreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work dark personality: What Is known. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 60(August 2013), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
  47. Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603901104
  48. Spector, P. E. (2019). Do Not Cross Me: Optimizing the Use of Cross-Sectional Designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8
  49. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment In the Workplace: Dimensons, Measurement and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
  50. Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond Talk: Creating Autonomous Motivation through Self-Determination Theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903400305
  51. Sun, L.-Y., Pan, W., & Chow, I. H. S. (2014). The role of supervisor political skill in mentoring: Dual motivational perspectives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1865
  52. Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.005
  53. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. a. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926
  54. trainingmag.com. (2017). 2017 Training: Industry Report. Trainingmag.Com, 20–33. Retrieved from https://pubs.royle.com/publication/?i=448382#%7B%22issue_id%22:448382,%22page%22:22%7D
  55. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2015). Girişimlerde Mesleki Eğitim. Retrieved May 16, 2019, from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24671
  56. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001
  57. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
  58. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. John Wiley and Sons.
  59. Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and Psychological Empowerment Climates, Performance, and the Moderating Role of Shared Felt Accountability: A Managerial Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 840–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022227
  60. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118
  61. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02