LİDERLİKTE MADALYONUN ÖTEKİ YÜZÜ: İKİ FARKLI KUŞAĞIN YIKICI LİDERLİK HAKKINDAKİ GÖRÜŞLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2023, Volume: 25 Issue: 3, 1249 - 1276, 15.09.2023

Benan Kurt Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1344389

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı yıkıcı liderlik davranışları olarak sınıflandırılan kötü niyetli denetim, baskı ve zorbalık, engelleme, hiyerarşik istismar, kendini öne çıkarma ve olumsuz mentorluk davranışlarını Y ve Z kuşağı gözüyle anlamaya çalışmaktır. Başka bir deyişle yıkıcı liderlik davranışlarının kuşaklar arasında nasıl çalıştığını ve takipçilerin söz konusu olumsuz davranışları nasıl algıladığını ortaya koymaktır. İlave olarak Y ve Z kuşak takipçilerin bireysel özelliklerinin, çevrelerinin ve bağlamsal özelliklerinin algı, deneyim ve davranışlarını nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaca uygun olarak araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemi, olgu bilim deseni ve odak grup görüşme tekniği benimsenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında 7 Y kuşak takipçi, 5 Z kuşak takipçi olmak üzere toplamda 12 katılımcının görüş ve deneyimleri irdelenmiştir. Araştırmada öne çıkan yıkıcı liderlik davranışlarının başında kötü niyetli denetim gelmektedir. Başka bir deyişle her iki kuşak katılımcı da kötü niyetli denetim deneyimine maruz kalmıştır. Bununla birlikte kuşakların kötü niyetli denetim algısı birbirinden farklıdır. Baskı ve zorbalık öne çıkan ikinci yıkıcı liderlik davranışı olurken, liderin kendini öne çıkarma davranışı üçüncü yıkıcı davranış olarak belirmektedir. Çalışmada katılımcılar, olumsuz liderlik davranışlarına ilişkin görüş ve deneyimlerini ortaya koyarken; Y kuşağı ve Z kuşağı katılımcıların söz konusu davranışı algılama ve yönetme biçiminin de farklı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Başka bir deyişle Y kuşağı karakteristik özellikleri çalışma yaşamına ve liderlik algısına etki ederken, benzer biçimde Z kuşağının karakteristik özellikleri de söz konusu kuşağın iş yapış biçimine ve liderlik algısına doğrudan etki etmektedir.

Keywords

Yıkıcı lider, Y Kuşağı, Z Kuşağı, Odak Grup Görüşmesi

Supporting Institution

YOK

Project Number

YOK

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IN LEADERSHIP: A STUDY ON THE PERSPECTIVES OF TWO DIFFERENT GENERATIONS ON DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

Abstract

The aim of this study is to try to understand close supervision, pressure and bullying, blocking, hierarchical abuse, self-promotion and negative mentoring behaviors classified as destructive leadership behaviors through the eyes of generation Y and Z. In other words, it is to reveal how destructive leadership behaviors work between generations and how followers perceive these negative behaviors. In addition, it aims to reveal how the individual characteristics, environmental and contextual characteristics of generation Y and Z followers affect their perception, experience and behavior. In accordance with this purpose, qualitative research method, phenomenologic design and focus group interview technique were adopted in the research. Within the scope of the research, the opinions and experiences of a total of 12 participants, including 7 Y generation followers, 5 Z generation followers, were examined. Leadership behaviours emerged in the research is close supervision. In other words, both generations of participants were exposed to the experience of close supervision. However, the perception of close supervision of generations is different from each other. Pressure and bullying are the second prominent destructive leadership behavior, while the leader's self-promotion behavior appears as the third destructive behavior. In the study, while the participants revealed their opinions and experiences about negative leadership behaviors, it turned out that the way generation Y and generation Z participants perceive and manage this behavior is also different. In other words, while the characteristic features of generation Y affect the working life and the perception of leadership, similarly, the characteristic features of generation Z directly affect the way this generation does business and the perception of leadership.

Keywords

Destructive Leadership, Generation Y, Generation Z, Focus Group Interview.

Project Number

YOK

References

• Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of management, 21 (2), 438-452.
• Almeida, T., Ramalho, N.C. & Esteves, F. (2021). Can you be a follower even when you do not follow the leader? Yes, you can. Leadership, 17 (3), 336-364.
• Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The leadership quarterly, 14 (3), 261-295.
• Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of applied psychology, 92 (1), 191.
• Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755−778.
• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. E. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323−370.
• Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with generations X and Y in generation Z period: Management of different generations in business life. Mediterranean journal of social Sciences, 5 (19), 218.
• Buahene, A. K., & Kovary, G. (2003). The road to performance success: Understanding and managing the generational divide. N-Gen People Performance Inc, 1-18.
• Buckley, M. R., Beu, D. S., Novicevic, M. M., & Sigerstad, T. D. (2001). Managing generation neXt: Individual and organizational perspectives. Review of Business, 22.
• Burrows D & Kendall S (1997). Focus groups: What are they and how can they be used in nursing and health care research? Social Sciences in Health, 3, 244–253.
• Brett, J.F., Uhl-Bien, M., Huang, L. & Carsten, M. (2016). Goal orientation and employee resistance at work: implications for manager emotional exhaustion with the employee. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89 (3), 611-633.
• Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21, 411–421.
• De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (3), 297–311.
• Dill, K. (2015). 7 Things Employers Should Know About The Gen Z Workforce, Forbes Magazin, 11.6. Erişim adresi: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ kathryndill/2015/11/06/7-things-employers-should-know-about-the-gen-z workforce/print/
• Doherty, A. & Russell H. (2011). Role Ambiguity and Volunteer Board Member Performance in Nonprofit Sport Organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22, 107–28.
• Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (3), 579-599.
• Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
• Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. (Eds. S.
• Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and practice ( 3−30). London: Taylor&Francis.
• Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The leadership quarterly, 18 (3), 207-216.
• Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM advanced management journal, 70 (4), 4.
• Elmore, T. (2014). How Generation Z Differs from Generation Y. Erişim Adresi:http://growingleaders.com/blog/generation-z-differs-generation-y/.
• Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195-206.
• Fleschner, S. (2007). Counseling across generations: bridging the Baby Boomer. Generations X, and Generations Y Gap, American Counselling Outfitters.
• Gordon, V. N., & Steele, M. J. (2005). The advising workplace: Generational differences and challenges. NACADA journal, 25 (1), 26-30.
• Grady, K. E., & Wallston, B. S. (1988). Research in health care settings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Green, J.M., Draper, A.K. & Dowler, E.A. (2003). Short cuts to safety: risk and ‘rules of thumb’ in accounts of food choice. Health, Risk and Society 5, 33–52.
• Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied psychology, 91 (5), 1125.
• Hung K., F. Gu, & C. Yim,(2008). A Social Instutional Approach to Identifying Generation Cohorts in China with a Comparison of American Consumers, Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 836-853.
• Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2008). Responding destructively in leadership situations: The role of personal values and problem construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 251-272.
• Indradevi, R. (2016). Toxic leadership over the years–a review. PURUSHARTHA-A journal of Management, Ethics and Spirituality, 9 (1), 106-110.
• Jain, V., & Pant, S. (2012). Navigating Generation Y for Effective Mobile Marketing in India: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 7 (3).
• Jopling, J. (2004). Understanding Generations, West Virginia University, Extension Service.
• Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational differences in the workplace. Worldwide hospitality and tourism themes, 3 (4), 308-318.
• Klasmeier, K. N., & Rowold, J. (2022). A diary study on shared leadership, team work engagement, and goal attainment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95 (1), 36-59.
• Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39 (5), 1308–1338.
• Krishnan, S. K., Bopaiah, S., Bajaj, D., & Prasad R. (2013). Organization, Generation, and Communication – Infosys Experience. NHRD Journal, 10, 85-93.
• Krueger R.A. (1995). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Krueger R.A. & Casey M.A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
• Lederman, N. G. (1995). Translation and Transformation of Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science into Classroom Practice.
• Leung, A. K., Robson, W. L. M., Cho, H., & Lim, S. H. (1996). Latchkey children. Journal of the royal society of health, 116 (6), 356-359.
• Levickaite, R. (2010). Generations X, Y, Z: How social networks form the concept of the world without borders (the case of Lithuania). LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics, 3 (2), 170-183.
• Liu, C., Yu, S., Chen, Y., & He, W. (2020). Supervision incivility and employee psychological safety in the workplace. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (3), 840.
• Lundmark, R., Richter, A., & Tafvelin, S. (2021). Consequences of managers' laissez-faire leadership during organizational restructuring. Journal of Change Management, 22 (1), 40-58.
• Mackey, J.D., Ellen, B.P., Mcallister, C.P. & Alexander, K.C. (2021). The dark side of leadership: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research, Journal of Business Research, 132, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037
• Mitchell, M.S. & Ambrose, M.L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 1159-68.
• Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27 (3), 521-535.
• Olalekan, O. N. & Babatunde, M. O. (2020). Influence of toxic leadership behaviour on teachers’ diligence and productivity in lagos state senior secondary schools, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Evaluation, 6 (2), 36-46.
• Olson, P., & Brescher, H. (2011). The power of 4. The four generations: who they are. Journal of business and management studies, 1 (2), 1-13.
• Rabiee, F. (1999). Evidence based practice: its relevance to nutritional intervention programmes. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 58, 50A
• Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36 (1), 5-18.
• Richardson CA & Rabiee F (2001). A Question of Access – an exploration of the factors influencing the health of young males aged 15–19 living in Corby and their use of health care services. Health Education Journal, 60, 3–6.
• Salleh, M. S. M., Mahbob, N. N., & Baharudin, N. S. (2017). Overview of “generation Z” behavioural characteristic and its effect towards hostel facility. International Journal of Real Estate Studies, 11 (2), 59-67.
• Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post‐crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (1), 78-95.
• Schawbel, D. (2012). Millennials vs. baby boomers: Who would you rather hire. Time Magazine, 29.
• Scheuer, M. L., Burton, J. P., Barber, L. K., Finkelstein, L. M., & Parker, C. P. (2016). Linking abusive supervision to employee engagement and exhaustion. Organization Management Journal, 13 (3), 138-147.
• Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: a qualitative study of the meaning of negative leadership", Leadership, 5 (1), 102-28.
• Schroder, S., & Zeller, W. (2005). Get to Know Gen X–and Its Segments. Multichannel News, 26 (12), 55.
• Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace?. California Management Review, 61 (3), 5-18.
• Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24 (1), 138-158.
• Stillman, D., Stillman, J., & Stillman, J. (2017). Gen Z@ Work: How the next generation is transforming the workplace. Blackstone Audio.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences Of Abusive Supervision. Academy Of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
• Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006) Procedural Injustice, Victim Precipitation, And Abusive Supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.
• Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators Of The Relationship Between Coworkers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior And Fellow Employees’ Attitudes. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.
• Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality Moderators Of The Relationships Between Abusive Supervision And Subordinates’ Resistance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 86, 974-983.
• Tepper, B. J., & Lockhart, D. (2005). Abused Subordinates’ Upward Maintenance Communication: A Coping Perspective. In E. Weatherly (Ed.), Proceedings Of The Annual Meeting Of The Southern Management Association, Charleston, SC. Clearwater, FL: Southern Management Association.
• Thomas, L., MacMillan, J., McColl, E., Hale, C., & Bond, S. (1995). Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health 1, 206–219.
• Thoroughgood, C.N., Sawyer, K.B., Padilla, A. & Lunsford, L. (2018). Destructive leadership: a critique of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 627-649, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3257-9.
• Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19 (2), 230-255.
• Timmermann, S. (2007). What a difference a generation makes: How our life experiences shape our viewpoints and behaviors. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 61 (3), 25.
• Tymieniecka, A. T. (2003). The Human Soul in the Metamorphosis of Life. In The Passions of the Soul in the Metamorphosis of Becoming (3-13). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
• Vullinghs, J. T., de Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog, D. N., & Boon, C. (2018). Ethical and passive leadership and their joint relationships with burnout via role clarity and role overload. Journal of Business Ethics, 165 (4), 719-733.
• Weingarten, R. M. (2009). Four Generations, One Workplace: A Gen X-Y Staff Nurse’s View Of Team Building in The Emergency Department. Journal Of Emergency Nursing. 35 (1), 27-30.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B. & Carsten, M.K. (2014). Followership theory: a review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25 (1), 83-104.
• Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: the density hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95 (1), 36.
• Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Zemke R., Raines C., & Filipczak B. (2002). Generations At Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Nxters in Your Worklace, AMA Publications, New York.
• Zhu, J., Song, L.J., Zhu, L. & Johnson, R.E. (2019). Visualizing the landscape and evolution of leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 30 (2), 215-232.