Kaynak Temelli Teori Çerçevesinde Örgütsel İmaj ve Öğrenci Sadakati Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 41, 443 - 458, 31.12.2021

Burak Özdemir , Hamid Murad Özcan

Öz

Bu araştırma, kaynak temelli teori kapsamında örgütsel imaj ile öğrenci sadakati arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Örgütsel imaj, somut (spor imajı, genel görünüm ve altyapı imajı, eğlence ve barınma-beslenme imajı) ve soyut (kalite ve program imajı, sosyal ortam imajı) imaj olmak üzere iki açıdan incelenmiştir. Öğrenci sadakati, örgütsel özdeşleşme, kararlılık ve kendini adama olarak kavramsallaştırılmıştır. Kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak 326 üniversite öğrencisinden veri elde edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, kalite ve program imajının öğrenci sadakatinin tüm boyutlarını olumlu yönde etkilediğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca sosyal ortam imajı, öğrenci sadakatinin örgütsel özdeşleşme ve kararlılık boyutlarını olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Sonuçlara göre, örgütsel imajın soyut yönünün öğrenci sadakatini olumlu yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Kaynak temelli teori kapsamında örgütsel imajın soyut yönünün öğrenci sadakatini geliştirerek üniversitelere rekabet avantajı sağlayabileceği ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynak Temelli Teori, Öğrenci Sadakati, Örgütsel İmaj, Üniversite İmajı

The Relationship Between Organizational Image and Student Loyalty within the scope of Resource-Based Theory

Öz

This research aims to investigate the relationship between organizational image and student loyalty within the scope of resource-based theory. Organizational image were examined in two aspects: tangible (sports image, general outlook and physical infrastructure image, entertainment and accommodation-food image) and intangible (quality and program image, social atmosphere image). Student loyalty was conceptualized as organizational identification, determination and self-commitment. Data were obtained from 326 university students by using convenience sampling method. This study showed that quality and program image positively affects all dimensions of student loyalty. Besides, social atmosphere image positively affects organizational identification and determination dimensions of student loyalty. The results indicated that intangible aspect of organizational image affects student loyalty positively. In that sense, it was suggested that intangible aspect of organizational image might provide competitive advantage to universities by enhancing student loyalty within the scope of resource-based theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Resource-Based Theory, Student Loyalty, Organizational Image, University Image

Kaynakça

• Aghaza, A., Hashemia, A. and Atashgaha, M. S. S. (2015). Factors contributing to university image: The postgraduate students’ points of view. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(1), 104–126.
• Annamdevula, S. and Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). The effects of service quality on student loyalty: The mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 446-462.
• Arpan, L., Raney, A. and Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97–113.
• Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94-104. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
• Barney, J. B., Wright, M. and Ketchen, Jr., D. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27, 625-641.
• Brown, R. M. and Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education, High Educ, 58, 81-95.
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NewYork, NY: Guilford Publications.
• Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative data analysis with spss 12 and 13. East Sussex: Routledge.
• Cerit, Y. (2006). Organizational Image Perceptions of the University by Undergraduate Students of School of Education. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 47, 343-365.
• Ceylan, A. and Doğanyılmaz, H. (2007). A Study About the Relations Between the Loyalty to Supervisor and Employee Performance. Yönetim, 18(56), 31-39.
• Churchill Jr, G. A. and Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A metaanalysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 360-375.
• Çalık Var, E. (2013). The investigation on determinants to predict the student loyalty of university students and alumnies by using structural equation model. Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.
• Çetin, R. (2004). Planning and implementing institutional image and promoting academic programs in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 13(1-2), 57-75.
• Dehghan, A., Dugger, J., Dobrzykowski, D. and Balazs, A. (2014). The antecedents of student loyalty in online programs. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(1), 15-35.
• Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113.
• Duarte, P. O., Alves, H. B. and Raposo, M. B. (2010). Understanding university image: A structural equation model approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7, 21–36.
• Erkmen, T. and Çerik, Ş. (2007). Examining organizational identity dimensions that form organizational image in relation to organizational commitment: a study among university students. Oneri, 7(28), 107-119.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss: Introducing statistical method. CA: Sage Publications.
• Gunarto, M., Wibowo, L. A. and Hurriyati, R. (2016). Creating students loyalty model in private higher education. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 15, 354-363.
• Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). CA: Sage Publications.
• Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian university college. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1), 38-59.
• Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F. and Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331-344.
• Hwang, Y. and Choi, Y. (2019). Higher education service quality and student satisfaction, institutional image, and behavioral intention. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(2), 1-12.
• Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 276-282.
• Kalasak, G., Özcan, M. and Dağyar, M. (2019). Relationship between pre-service teachers' university image perceptions and student loyalty: A structural equation model. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 480-489.
• Karatekin Alkoç, Y. (2017). Research to understand the relationship between the image of the university, satisfaction in university and student loyalty. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 270-280.
• Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y. and Moffitt, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 205-216.
• Kennedy, S. H. (1977). Nurturing corporate image. Europan Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 120-164.
• Korumaz, M. and Tekel, E. (2016). Student loyalty scale for higher education: adaptation, investigating factor structure and language validity. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 7(1), 183-203.
• Kotler, P. and Fox, K. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Köse, İ. A. (2012). Student Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 2(2), 114-118.
• Kunanusorn, A. and Puttawong, D. (2015). The mediating effect of satisfaction on student loyalty to higher education institution. European Scientific Journal, 1, 449-463.
• Landrum, R., Turrisi, R. and Harless, C. (1998). University image: The benefits of assessment and modeling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 53–68.
• Masserini, L., Bini, M. and Pratesi, M. (2019). Do quality of services and institutional image impact students’ satisfaction and loyalty in higher education? Social Indicators Research, 146, 91-115.
• Nguyen, N. and LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions is students’ retention decisions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303-311.
• O’Driscoll, A., Carson, D. and Gilmore, A. (2000). Developing marketing competence and managing in networks: A strategic perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(2), 183-196.
• Örer, L. (2006). The measurement of Kahraman Sütçü Imam University image in the view of students: an empirical study. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam University, Kahramanmaraş.
• Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D. and Perez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.
• Parameswaran, R. and Glowacka, A. E. (1995). University image: An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41-56.
• Perez, J. P. and Torres, E. M. (2016). Evaluation of the organizational image of a university in a higher education institution. Contaduria y administracion, 62(1), 123-140.
• Polat, S. (2011). Organizational image of Kocaeli University for university students. Education and Science, 36(160), 105-119.
• Reyhanoğlu, M. and Örs, H. (2005). Strategy Formation with Resource Based View. Pi, 4(11), 34-43.
• Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A. and Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10(1), 21-39.
• Schlesinger, W., Cervera, A. and Pérez-Cabañero, C. (2017). Sticking with your university: The importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 2178–2194.
• Selçuk, Ş. (2018). Administrators’ innovational competencies and organizational image perception in private high schools. Unpublished Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Stevens, J. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Sung, M. and Yang, S.U. (2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 357-376.
• Şanlı, Ö. and Arabacı, İ. B. (2016). Effect of the perceptions of organizational identity and organizational image on the comitment of the teachers working at high schools. Education Sciences, 11(3), 126-152.
• Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
• Tayyar, N. and Dilşeker, F. (2012). The effect of service quality and image on student satisfaction at state and private universities. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, 28, 184-203.
• Tehci, A. (2020). Relationship between student satisfaction and loyalty in higher education: mediating role of corporate image perception. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11, 121-131.
• Terkla, D. G. and Pagano, M. F. (1993). Understanding institutional image. Research in Higher Education, 34(1), 11-22.
• Thomas, S. (2011). What drives student loyalty in universities: An empirical model from India. International Business Research, 4(2), 183-192.
• Yu, G. B. and Kim, J. H. (2008). Testing the mediating effect of the quality of college life in the student satisfaction and student loyalty relationship. Applied Research Quality Life, 3, 1-21.
• Yükseköğretim Kurumu (2021). Birim istatistikleri. Accessed in 21.01.2021 https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/