Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Örgütsel Güven ve Psikolojik Sözleşme İlişkisinde Profesyonel Bürokrasi Etkisi

Year 2020, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 18 - 32, 30.04.2020

Yavuz Korkmazyürek , Abdülkadir Varoğlu

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, aynı örgüt içinde Destek personeli ve Örgüt profesyonelleri arasında, Örgütsel güven ve Psikolojik sözleşme algılarında potansiyel farklılığın araştırılmasıdır. Bu araştırma için analiz birimi olarak seçilen örgüt, Mintzberg’in Profesyonel bürokrasi örgüt yapılanmasını temsil eden üniversitedir. Bu doğrultuda, Profesyonel bürokrasinin olası etkisini oluşturduğu öngörülen, “eğitim düzeyi” ile “hiyerarşik yönelim” faktörlerinin, Örgütsel güven ve Psikolojik sözleşme etkileşiminde ne derece etkili olabileceği araştırılmıştır. Yöntem açısından nicel yöntem uygulanan bu çalışmada veriler anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Bulgulara göre gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık bulunmuştur. Örgüt profesyonelleri ve Destek personelinin Psikolojik sözleşme ve Örgütsel güven ortalamaları farklılaşmaktadır. Eğitim seviyesi arttıkça, Psikolojik sözleşme algı ortalamaları düşmektedir. Neticede, örgütsel güven ve psikolojik sözleşme değişkenlerinin literatür de profesyonel bürokrasi temelinde tartışılmamış olması, araştırmanın önemini arttırmakta ve araştırma bulgularının, yönetim ve örgütsel davranış literatürüne faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Psikolojik sözleşme Örgütsel güven Profesyonel bürokrasi

References

  • Abernethy, M.A., ve Stoelwinder, J.U. (1990). The relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals: An elaboration and test of Mintzberg’s Professional bureaucracy model. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. (3) 3: 18-33.
  • Arıcan, T. (2009). Öğretmenlerde mesleki tükenmişlik ve okul yönetiminde bürokrasi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Asunakutlu, T. (2002). Örgütsel güvenin oluşturulmasına ilişkin unsurlar ve bir değerlendirme. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9: 1-13.
  • Aktaş, M., ve Can, A. (2012). Yöneticilerin kültürel değerleri ve izleyici davranışları. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12 (2): 239-249.
  • Bagraim., J. F. ve Hime, P. (2007). The dimensionality of workplace interpersonal trust and its relationship to workplace affective commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 3 (3): 43-48.
  • Bess, J. L. (1998). Contract systems, bureaucracies, and faculty motivation. The Journal of Higher Education, 69 (1): 1-22.
  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
  • Brown, J. D. (1997). Statistics corner. Skewness and kurtosis. Jalt Testing & Evaluation Sig Newsletter, 1 (2): 18-21.
  • Büyükyılmaz, O. (2013). Akademik personel açısından psikolojik sözleşme ihlali işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişkilerin analizi. Doktora Tezi. Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Zonguldak.
  • Cheng, Sheung-Tak. (1990). Change processes in the professional bureaucracy. Journal of Community Psychology. 18: 183-193.
  • Clegg, S. R. (2012). The end of Bureaucracy. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. 2012. (Der.). Research in the sociology of organizations: 59-84. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Dabos, G. E., ve Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in psychological contracts of employees and employers, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1): 52-72.
  • De Vos, A., Buyens, D., ve Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 537-559.
  • Diefenbach., T ve Sillince, J. A. A. (2012). Crossing of Boundaries- subordinates’challenges to organizational hierarchy. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (Der.), Research in the sociology of organizations: 171-204. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (2012). Bureaucracy and hierarchy – what else !?. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (Der.), Research in the sociology of organizations: 1-30. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Dirks, K .T., ve Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12 (4): 450-467.
  • Doğan, S., ve Demiral, Ö. (2009). Örgütsel bağlılığın sağlanmasında personel güçlendirme ve psikolojik sözleşmenin etkisine ilişkin bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32: 47-80.
  • Douglas., C. ve Zivnuska, S. (2008). Developing trust in leaders: An antecedent of firm performance. Advanced Management Journal, 73 (1): 20-28.
  • Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A .M., Henderson, D. J., ve Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management, 51 (6): 1079-1098.
  • Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., ve Demir, O. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri, 33 (1): 210-223.
  • Fiske, A. P. (1990). Relativity within moose culture: Four incommensurable models for socialrelationships. Ethos,18 (2): 180-204.
  • Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of latent social role. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (3) : 281-306.
  • Grimmer, M., ve Oddy, M. (2007). Violation of the psychological contract: The mediating effect of relational versus transactional beliefs. Australian Journal of Management, 32 (1): 153-174.
  • Guest, D. E. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 649-654.
  • Guest, D. E., ve Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the Psychological Contract: An employer perspective, Human Resource Management Journal, 12 (2): 22-38.
  • Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture & Society.Sage, 7: 237-251.
  • Harper, D. (1965). The growth of bureaucracy in school systems. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (3): 261-271.
  • Hoy, W. K., ve Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yonetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (7.Baskıdan Çev.), (S. Turan Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • J, Li. J., Wong, I.A., ve Kim, W.G. (2016). Effects of psychological contract breach on attitudes and performance: The moderating role of competitive climate. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55: 1-10.
  • Jafri, H. (2012). Influence of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour and trust. Psychology Study, 57 (1): 29–36.
  • Karcıoğlu, F., ve Türker, E. (2010). Psikolojik sözleşme ile örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi: Sağlık çalışanları üzerinde bir uygulama, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24 (2): 121-140.
  • Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizastions: Emerging perspectives enduring questions. Annual Reviews Psychology, 50, 569-598.
  • Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., ve Bloodgood, J. M. (2000). Supervisor and subordinate views of psychological contract fulfillment: the impact of perceptual differences on employee work attitudes and behaviors. In: Proceedings of the Academy of Management Proceedings, 1–6.
  • Levinson, H. (1962). Men, management and mental health, Cambridge, MA, s.
  • Likert, R. (1979). From production- and employee-centeredness to systems 1-4. Journal of Management, 5 (2): 147-156.
  • Mao, H., Lee, X., ve Ge, H. (2008). Evading tactics of psychological contract violations. Asian Social Science, 4 (11): 26-29.
  • Marks, A. (2001). Developing a multiple foci conceptualization of the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 23(5): 454-455.
  • Matthai, J. M. (1989). Employee perceptions of trust, satisfaction, and commitment as predictors of work and occupations turnover intentions in a mental health setting. Doctoral dissertation, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 211-236 , DAI - B 51/02.
  • McFarlane S. L., ve Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationshi, Trends in Organizational Behavior. 1- 91. Mintzberg, H. (2015). Örgütler ve yapıları. (A. Aypay, Çev). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. (Orijinal çalışmanın yayın tarihi 1979).
  • Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perception of their own and their employer’s obligations. A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 389-400.
  • Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 118-153.
  • Russell, B. (1982). Çağımızın sorunları üstüne düşünceler. (4.Baskı). Say Dağıtım. İstanbul.
  • Scarbrough, C. S. (2005). Aspects of school mindfulness and dimensions of faculty trust: Social processes in elementary schools. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Texas, San Antonio. (UMI No: 3195504).
  • Schalk, R., ve Roe, R. (2007). Towards a dynamic model of psychological contract violation, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
  • Schalk, R., ve Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Psychological contracts in employment, Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. Sage Publication, London, England. 2: 133-142.
  • Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American journal of Sociology, 93 (3): 623-658.
  • Sharkie, R. (2005). Precariousness under the new psychological contract: the effect on trust and the willingness to converse and share knowledge. Knowledge Management Research &Practice, 3: 37-44.
  • Sheppard, B. H., ve Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3): 422-437.
  • Shockley, Z. P,, Ellis. K., ve Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: what it means, why it matters. Organizational Development Journal, 18 (4): 35-48.
  • Shore, L. M., ve Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. İçinde C. Cooper, ve D. Rousseau (Ed), Trends in Organizatiotial Behavior, 1: 91-109, New York: Wiley.
  • Uzbilek, A. (2006). Örgütlerde oluşan sosyal ilişkilerin örgütsel güvenin alt boyutlarına etkileri: Başkent Üniversitesi Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Yılmaz, A. (2012). Psikolojik sözleşme ve örgütsel güven arasındaki ilişkinin analizi: Teorik ve uygulamalı bir çalışma, Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., ve Percone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effect interorganizational and interpersonel trust on performance organization, Organization Science, 9: 141-159.
  • Zaleznik, A. (1989). The managerial mystique – Restoring leadership in business. NY: Harper & Row. New York.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1986). ‘Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 53-111.
  • Whitener, E. M., Susan, E. B., Korsgaard, M. A., ve Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An understanding managerial trust worthy behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3): 513-530.
  • Wilson, J. H. (2010). Authority in the 21st Century: Likert’s system 5 theory. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3 (1): 33-41.

THE EFFECT OF PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRACY ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS

Year 2020, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 18 - 32, 30.04.2020

Yavuz Korkmazyürek , Abdülkadir Varoğlu

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the potential differences between the operating core and support staff on the perceptions of Organizational trust and Psychological contracts in the same organization. The organization chosen as the analysis unit for this research is the university which representing Mintzberg's Professional bureaucracy organizational structure. In this direction, the effect of “education level” and “hierarchical tendency” factors which is thought to constitute the possible effect of Professional bureaucracy was investigated on how effective it is in the interaction between Organizational trust and Psychological contracts. In this quantitative study, the data were collected through a questionnaire. Consequently, the averages of Psychological contracts and Organizational trust differed between Operating core group and Support staff group. As the education level increases, the means of perception about Psychological contracts decreases. The fact that the variables of organizational trust and psychological contracts are not discussed in the literature on the basis of professional bureaucracy increases the importance of the research and it is thought that the research findings will be beneficial to the management and organizational behavior literature.

References

  • Abernethy, M.A., ve Stoelwinder, J.U. (1990). The relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals: An elaboration and test of Mintzberg’s Professional bureaucracy model. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. (3) 3: 18-33.
  • Arıcan, T. (2009). Öğretmenlerde mesleki tükenmişlik ve okul yönetiminde bürokrasi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Asunakutlu, T. (2002). Örgütsel güvenin oluşturulmasına ilişkin unsurlar ve bir değerlendirme. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9: 1-13.
  • Aktaş, M., ve Can, A. (2012). Yöneticilerin kültürel değerleri ve izleyici davranışları. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12 (2): 239-249.
  • Bagraim., J. F. ve Hime, P. (2007). The dimensionality of workplace interpersonal trust and its relationship to workplace affective commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 3 (3): 43-48.
  • Bess, J. L. (1998). Contract systems, bureaucracies, and faculty motivation. The Journal of Higher Education, 69 (1): 1-22.
  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
  • Brown, J. D. (1997). Statistics corner. Skewness and kurtosis. Jalt Testing & Evaluation Sig Newsletter, 1 (2): 18-21.
  • Büyükyılmaz, O. (2013). Akademik personel açısından psikolojik sözleşme ihlali işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişkilerin analizi. Doktora Tezi. Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Zonguldak.
  • Cheng, Sheung-Tak. (1990). Change processes in the professional bureaucracy. Journal of Community Psychology. 18: 183-193.
  • Clegg, S. R. (2012). The end of Bureaucracy. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. 2012. (Der.). Research in the sociology of organizations: 59-84. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Dabos, G. E., ve Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in psychological contracts of employees and employers, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1): 52-72.
  • De Vos, A., Buyens, D., ve Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 537-559.
  • Diefenbach., T ve Sillince, J. A. A. (2012). Crossing of Boundaries- subordinates’challenges to organizational hierarchy. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (Der.), Research in the sociology of organizations: 171-204. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (2012). Bureaucracy and hierarchy – what else !?. Diefenbach, T., ve Todnem, R. (Der.), Research in the sociology of organizations: 1-30. United Kingdom: Emerald.
  • Dirks, K .T., ve Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12 (4): 450-467.
  • Doğan, S., ve Demiral, Ö. (2009). Örgütsel bağlılığın sağlanmasında personel güçlendirme ve psikolojik sözleşmenin etkisine ilişkin bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 32: 47-80.
  • Douglas., C. ve Zivnuska, S. (2008). Developing trust in leaders: An antecedent of firm performance. Advanced Management Journal, 73 (1): 20-28.
  • Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A .M., Henderson, D. J., ve Wayne, S. J. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: the interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management, 51 (6): 1079-1098.
  • Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., ve Demir, O. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri, 33 (1): 210-223.
  • Fiske, A. P. (1990). Relativity within moose culture: Four incommensurable models for socialrelationships. Ethos,18 (2): 180-204.
  • Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of latent social role. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2 (3) : 281-306.
  • Grimmer, M., ve Oddy, M. (2007). Violation of the psychological contract: The mediating effect of relational versus transactional beliefs. Australian Journal of Management, 32 (1): 153-174.
  • Guest, D. E. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 649-654.
  • Guest, D. E., ve Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the Psychological Contract: An employer perspective, Human Resource Management Journal, 12 (2): 22-38.
  • Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture & Society.Sage, 7: 237-251.
  • Harper, D. (1965). The growth of bureaucracy in school systems. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 24 (3): 261-271.
  • Hoy, W. K., ve Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yonetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (7.Baskıdan Çev.), (S. Turan Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • J, Li. J., Wong, I.A., ve Kim, W.G. (2016). Effects of psychological contract breach on attitudes and performance: The moderating role of competitive climate. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55: 1-10.
  • Jafri, H. (2012). Influence of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour and trust. Psychology Study, 57 (1): 29–36.
  • Karcıoğlu, F., ve Türker, E. (2010). Psikolojik sözleşme ile örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi: Sağlık çalışanları üzerinde bir uygulama, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24 (2): 121-140.
  • Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizastions: Emerging perspectives enduring questions. Annual Reviews Psychology, 50, 569-598.
  • Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., ve Bloodgood, J. M. (2000). Supervisor and subordinate views of psychological contract fulfillment: the impact of perceptual differences on employee work attitudes and behaviors. In: Proceedings of the Academy of Management Proceedings, 1–6.
  • Levinson, H. (1962). Men, management and mental health, Cambridge, MA, s.
  • Likert, R. (1979). From production- and employee-centeredness to systems 1-4. Journal of Management, 5 (2): 147-156.
  • Mao, H., Lee, X., ve Ge, H. (2008). Evading tactics of psychological contract violations. Asian Social Science, 4 (11): 26-29.
  • Marks, A. (2001). Developing a multiple foci conceptualization of the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 23(5): 454-455.
  • Matthai, J. M. (1989). Employee perceptions of trust, satisfaction, and commitment as predictors of work and occupations turnover intentions in a mental health setting. Doctoral dissertation, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 211-236 , DAI - B 51/02.
  • McFarlane S. L., ve Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationshi, Trends in Organizational Behavior. 1- 91. Mintzberg, H. (2015). Örgütler ve yapıları. (A. Aypay, Çev). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. (Orijinal çalışmanın yayın tarihi 1979).
  • Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perception of their own and their employer’s obligations. A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 389-400.
  • Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 118-153.
  • Russell, B. (1982). Çağımızın sorunları üstüne düşünceler. (4.Baskı). Say Dağıtım. İstanbul.
  • Scarbrough, C. S. (2005). Aspects of school mindfulness and dimensions of faculty trust: Social processes in elementary schools. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Texas, San Antonio. (UMI No: 3195504).
  • Schalk, R., ve Roe, R. (2007). Towards a dynamic model of psychological contract violation, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
  • Schalk, R., ve Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Psychological contracts in employment, Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. Sage Publication, London, England. 2: 133-142.
  • Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American journal of Sociology, 93 (3): 623-658.
  • Sharkie, R. (2005). Precariousness under the new psychological contract: the effect on trust and the willingness to converse and share knowledge. Knowledge Management Research &Practice, 3: 37-44.
  • Sheppard, B. H., ve Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3): 422-437.
  • Shockley, Z. P,, Ellis. K., ve Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: what it means, why it matters. Organizational Development Journal, 18 (4): 35-48.
  • Shore, L. M., ve Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. İçinde C. Cooper, ve D. Rousseau (Ed), Trends in Organizatiotial Behavior, 1: 91-109, New York: Wiley.
  • Uzbilek, A. (2006). Örgütlerde oluşan sosyal ilişkilerin örgütsel güvenin alt boyutlarına etkileri: Başkent Üniversitesi Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Yılmaz, A. (2012). Psikolojik sözleşme ve örgütsel güven arasındaki ilişkinin analizi: Teorik ve uygulamalı bir çalışma, Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., ve Percone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effect interorganizational and interpersonel trust on performance organization, Organization Science, 9: 141-159.
  • Zaleznik, A. (1989). The managerial mystique – Restoring leadership in business. NY: Harper & Row. New York.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1986). ‘Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 53-111.
  • Whitener, E. M., Susan, E. B., Korsgaard, M. A., ve Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An understanding managerial trust worthy behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3): 513-530.
  • Wilson, J. H. (2010). Authority in the 21st Century: Likert’s system 5 theory. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 3 (1): 33-41.
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Yavuz Korkmazyürek 0000-0001-8329-4080

Abdülkadir Varoğlu

Publication Date April 30, 2020
Submission Date February 20, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020Volume: 5 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Korkmazyürek, Y., & Varoğlu, A. (2020). Örgütsel Güven ve Psikolojik Sözleşme İlişkisinde Profesyonel Bürokrasi Etkisi. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 18-32.