KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Tourism Intelligence and Smartness / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Algılanan Örgütsel Desteğin Örgütsel Güven Üzerindeki Etkisinde Yapıcı Sapma Davranışlarının Aracı Rolü: Konaklama İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

When Support Encourages Rule-Bending: Constructive Deviance as a Pathway to Organizational Trust in Hospitality

Osman Yalap(ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-1058-2457
Sayfa
1–15
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-20
🏛️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)

Bulgular, algılanan örgütsel desteğin örgütsel güveni hem doğrudan hem de yapıcı sapma davranışları aracılığıyla dolaylı olarak artırdığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, algılanan örgütsel desteğin konaklama işletmelerinde örgütsel güven üzerindeki etkisini ve bu ilişkide yapıcı sapma davranışlarının aracı rolünü incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırma verileri, Türkiye’nin önemli turizm destinasyonlarından biri olan Antalya’da faaliyet gösteren beş yıldızlı otellerde çalışan 403 ön hat çalışanından elde edilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, algılanan örgütsel desteğin örgütsel güveni hem doğrudan hem de yapıcı sapma davranışları aracılığıyla dolaylı olarak artırdığını göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Yapıcı Sapma · Algılanan Örgütsel Destek · Örgütsel Güven

Özet

Bu çalışma, algılanan örgütsel desteğin konaklama işletmelerinde örgütsel güven üzerindeki etkisini ve bu ilişkide yapıcı sapma davranışlarının aracı rolünü incelemektedir. Araştırma verileri, Türkiye’nin önemli turizm destinasyonlarından biri olan Antalya’da faaliyet gösteren beş yıldızlı otellerde çalışan 403 ön hat çalışanından elde edilmiştir. Önerilen model, Hayes’in PROCESS makrosu (Model 4) kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bulgular, algılanan örgütsel desteğin örgütsel güveni hem doğrudan hem de yapıcı sapma davranışları aracılığıyla dolaylı olarak artırdığını göstermektedir. Yüksek operasyonel baskının söz konusu olduğu hizmet ortamlarında, örgütlerinden güçlü destek algılayan çalışanların hizmet çıktılarının iyileştirilmesi amacıyla kuralları esnetmeye daha istekli oldukları ve bu davranışların örgütsel güveni pekiştirdiği görülmüştür. Çalışma, yapıcı sapma davranışlarını işlevsel ve ilişki temelli bir mekanizma olarak ele alarak konaklama yönetimi yazınına katkı sunmakta ve güven temelli örgütsel iklimlerin sürdürülebilmesine yönelik uygulamaya dönük çıkarımlar geliştirmektedir.

Abstract

This study examines how employees’ perceptions of organizational support shape the development of trust within hospitality organizations. Drawing on data collected from 403 frontline employees working in five-star hotels in Türkiye, the research explores whether constructive deviance functions as a mediating mechanism in this relationship. The proposed model was tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4). The findings reveal that perceived organizational support strengthens organizational trust both directly and indirectly through constructive deviant behaviors performed with prosocial intent. In service environments characterized by high operational pressure, employees who perceive strong support from their organizations appear more willing to engage in rule-bending behaviors aimed at improving service outcomes, which in turn fosters greater trust. By highlighting constructive deviance as a relational mechanism rather than a dysfunctional outcome, this study contributes to hospitality management literature and provides practical implications for sustaining trust-based organizational climates.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yalap, O. (2026). Algılanan Örgütsel Desteğin Örgütsel Güven Üzerindeki Etkisinde Yapıcı Sapma Davranışlarının Aracı Rolü: Konaklama İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Journal of Tourism Intelligence and Smartness, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.58636/jtis.1899265

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (36)

  1. Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (5), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.211
  2. Bai, N., Yan, Z., & Othman, R. (2023). The moderating effect of perceived organizational support: The impact of psychological capital and bidirectional work-family nexuses on psychological wellbeing in tourism. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1064632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1064632
  3. Barreiro, P. L., & Albandoz, J. P. (2001). Population and sample. Sampling techniques. Management Mathematics for European Schools, 1(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.5.1770993
  4. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
  5. Chen, H., & Eyoun, K. (2021). Do mindfulness and perceived organizational support work? Fear of COVID-19 on restaurant frontline employees’ job insecurity and emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102850
  6. Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in organizations: 302-330. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., Mayer, D. M., & Gregory, J. B. (2012). Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.730
  8. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  9. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
  10. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
  11. 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/10.1177/002224378101800104
  12. Galperin, B. L. (2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (12), 2988–3025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00971.x
  13. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076- 8998.5.1.95
  14. Guzzo, R. F., Wang, X., Madera, J. M., & Abbott, J. (2021). Organizational trust in times of COVID-19: Hospitality employees’ affective responses to managers’ communication. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102778
  15. Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  16. Hennigan, P. J., & Cohn, E. S. (2022). Breaking rules for moral reasons: Development and validation of the prosocial and antisocial rule-breaking (PARB) scale. Law and Human Behavior, 46 (4), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000488
  17. Howard, M. C., & Henderson, J. (2023). A review of exploratory factor analysis in tourism and hospitality research: Identifying current practices and avenues for improvement. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113328
  18. Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16 (3), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876
  19. Khan, N. U., Zada, M., Ullah, A., Khattak, A., Han, H., Ariza-Montes, A., & Araya-Castillo, L. (2022). Servant leadership and followers prosocial rule-breaking: The mediating role of public service motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 848531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.84853
  20. Khan, N. U., Zada, M., & Estay, C. (2023). Servant leadership and employee prosocial rule-breaking: The underlying effects of psychological safety and compassion at work. PLOS ONE, 18 (4), e0282832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282832
  21. Kim, K. Y., Eisenberger, R., Takeuchi, R., & Baik, K. (2022). Organizational-level perceived support enhances organizational profitability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107 (12), 2176–2196. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000567
  22. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  23. Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 86, 104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330
  24. Liu, Q., & Zhao, H. (2023). From committed employees to rebels: The role of prosocial rule-breaking, age, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34 (22), 4232–4260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2173019
  25. Malik, L. R. (2024). Prosocial rule-breaking: A systematic literature review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7 (2), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-11-2022-0561
  26. Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T. F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive deviance as a driver for performance in retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.021
  27. Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277790
  28. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2003-08045-010
  29. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  30. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: application in tourism. Tourism Management, 20(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00104-6
  31. Robbins, D. L., & Galperin, B. L. (2010). Constructive deviance: Striving toward organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5, 1–11.
  32. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. Shum, C., & Ghosh, A. (2022). Safety or service? Effects of employee prosocial safety-rulebreaking on consumer satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103, 103225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103225
  34. Teng, C.-C., Lu, A. C. C., Huang, Z.-Y., & Fang, C.-H. (2020). Ethical work climate, organizational identification, leader-member exchange (LMX) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): A study of three star hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2018-0563
  35. Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving forward. Journal of Management, 39 (5), 1221–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475816
  36. Williams, L. J., & McGonagle, A. K. (2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 339-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9422-9