A Research on Leader-Member Exchange from the E-Leadership Perspective

Yıl 2021, , 253 - 267, 21.09.2021

Mustafa Sundu

https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.680018

Cited By: 1

Öz

The number of virtual organizations and project groups is increasing day by day and the management information systems and information technologies are used effectively in the business environment. The aim of this study is to research Leader Member Exchange (LMX) from e-leadership perspective in the organizations which use digital communication and virtual team applications based on information technologies and to reveal the effects of the developments caused by digitalization on leadership theory. The questionnaire was applied to 238 employees of the firms using information technologies intensively (daily %50 and up). The questionnaire consisted of statements on Leader Member Exchange (LMX) (from the perspective of the member) and Digital Technology Attitude scales. The results obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed by regression modeling and structural equation modeling. Significant relationships were found between the Leader Member Exchange and sub dimensions of Leader Member Exchange (affect, loyalty, contribution and respect) and the digital technology attitudes of the employees of the firms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-Leadership, Information technology attitude, Management ınformation systems, Digital leadership, Leader-member exchange

E-Liderlik Perspektifinden Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Sanal organizasyon ve proje gruplarının sayıları her geçen gün hızla artmakta, yönetim bilişim sistemleri ve bilgi teknolojileri iş çevrelerinde etkin bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı bilgi teknolojilerini iş süreçlerinde yoğun bir şekilde kullanan organizasyonların Lider Üye Etkileşimi süreçlerini E-liderlik perspektifinden incelemek ve dijitalleşmenin neden olduğu gelişmelerin liderlik teorisine yaptığı etkileri ortaya koymaktır. Bu maksatla iletişimde yoğun bir şekilde bilgi teknolojileri kullanılan (%50 ve üzeri) işletmelerin 238 çalışanına anket uygulanmıştır. Anket lider-üye etkileşimi (üye açısından) ve dijital teknoloji tutum ölçeklerine yönelik ifadelerden oluşmaktadır ve yüz yüze anket olarak uygulanmıştır. Anketten elde edilen sonuçlar regresyon modellemesi ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bilgi teknolojilerini ve sanal takım çalışmalarını yoğun olarak kullanan firma çalışanlarının bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine karşı tutumları ile lider-üye etkileşimi düzeyleri (etki boyutu, sadakat boyutu, katkı boyutu, profesyonel saygı boyutu) arasında anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

E-liderlik, Bilgi teknolojileri tutumu, Yönetim bilişim sistemleri, Dijital liderlik, Lider-üye etkileşimi

Kaynakça

• AJZEN, I. & FISHBEIN, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116
• AVOLIO, B. J., KAHAI, S. & DODGE, G. E. (2000). E-Leadership: Implications For Theory, Research, and Practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615. https://doi.org/4369540
• AVOLIO, B. J. & KAHAI, S. S. (2003). Adding the “E” to E-Leadership: How it May Impact Your Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–338.
• AWAMLEH, R., GARDNER, W. L. & GARDNER, W. (1987). Perceptions of Leader Charisma and Effectiveness: The Effects of Vision Content, Delivery, and Organizational Performance. Bass & Avolio, 10(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3
• BAGOZZI, R. & BURNKRANT, R. E. (1985). Attitude Organization and the Attitude Behavior Relation - a Reply. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 47–57.
• BARRETT, P. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.
• BAŞ, T., KESKIN, N. & MERT, İ. S. (2010). Lider Üye Etkileşimi ( LÜE ) Modeli ve Ölçme Aracının Türkçe’de Geçerlik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması. Ege Akademik Bakış, 10(3), 1013–1039.
• BOTERO, I. C. & VAN DYNE, L. (2009). Employee Voice Behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335415
• CARMINES, E. G. & ZELLER, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.
• CHAU, P. Y. K. & HU, P. J.-H. (2001). Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
• CHIN, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1. https://doi.org/Editorial
• COFFMAN, J. R. (2007). Effective leadership communication: A guide for department chairs and deans for managing difficult situations and people. The Department Chair, 18(2), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/dch.20027
• DAVIS, F. D., BAGOZZI, R. & WARSHAW, P. (1989). User Acceptance Of Computer Technology: A Comparison Of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003., 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.2307/2632151
• DAVIS, F. D., BAGOZZI, R. P. & WARSHAW, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
• DAY, A., PAQUET, S., SCOTT, N. & HAMBLEY, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: The Moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029837
• DE VRIES, R. E., BAKKER-PIEPER, A. & OOSTENVELD, W. (2010). Leadership : communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2
• DEN HARTOG, D. N. & VARBURG, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rethoric: Communicative Techniques of International Business Leaders. Leaderrship Quaterly, 8(4), 355–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90020-5
• DILLON, W. R. & KUMAR, A. (1985). Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation. A Critique of Bagozzi and Burnkrant’s Reanalysis of Fishbein and Ajzen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.33
• 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
• EDISON, S. W. & GEISSLER, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104
• ELLEN, P., BEARDEN, W. & SHARMA, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726504
• ERKUŞ, A., SANLI, N., BAĞLI, M. T. & GÜVEN, K. (2000). Öğretmenliğe Ilişkin Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirilmesi. Eğiitm ve Bilim, 25(16), 27–33.
• FISHBEIN, M. & AJZEN, I. (1974). Attitudes Towards Objects as Perdictors of Single and Multiple Behavorial Criteria. Psychological Review, 81(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035872
• FRESE, M., BEIMEL, S. & SCHOENBORN, S. (2003). Action Training for Charismatic Leadership: Two Evaluations of Studies of a Commercial Training Module on Inspirational Communication of a Vision. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 671–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00754.x
• GAJENDRAN, R. S. & JOSHI, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of lmx, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028958
• GRAEN, G. B. & UHL-BIEN, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• HOOPER, D., COUGHLAN, J. & MULLEN, M. R. (2008). " Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58
• HUANG, X., CHAN, S. C. H., LAM, W. & NAN, X. (2010). The joint effect of leader-member exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call centers in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 1124–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783553
• KIRKPATRICK, S. A. & LOCKE, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36
• LAMB, R., SAWYER, S. & KLING, R. (2000). A Social Informatics Perspective on Socio- Technical Networks. AMCIS 1, 1612–1617.
• LEE, J. (2001). Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901144002
• LIDEN, R. C. & MASLYN, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400105
• MASLYN, J. M. & UHL-BIEN, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697
• ÖZGÜR, H. (2016). Adapting the media and technology usage and attitudes scale to Turkish. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 16(5), 1711–1735. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0085
• ÖZMUSUL, M. (2011). Bilişim Teknolojilerinden Yararlanma Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 1–17.
• PARASURAMAN, A. (2015). Index ( TRI ) A Multiple-Item Scale to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(May 2000), 307–320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
• RIGGIO, R. E., SALINAS, C., RIGGIO, H. R. & COLE, E. J. (2003). The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 7(2), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.83
• SHAMIR, B. (1999). Leadership in Boundaryless Organizations: Disposable or Indispensable? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398438
• TOWLER, A. J. (2003). Effects of charistmatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 363–382.
• UHL-BIEN, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007
• YASLIOGLU, M. M., PEKDEMIR, I. & TOPLU, D. (2013). Duygusal Zeka ve Çatışma Yönetimi Yöntemleri Arasındaki İlişki ve Bu İlişkide Lider Üye Etkileşiminin Rolü. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(22), 191.