JOSHAS Journal (e-ISSN:2630-6417)
2021 / Vol:7, Issue:40 / pp.1005-1014
Arrival Date : 03.05.2021
Published Date : 22.06.2021
Doi Number : http://dx.doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.637
Cite As : Uslu, A. & Çavuşoğlu, S.B. (2021). “Researching The Dimensions Of Leadership Of Sports Managers In A Public
Institution”, Journal Of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(40):1005-1014.
RESEARCHING THE DIMENSIONS OF LEADERSHIP OF SPORTS MANAGERS
IN A PUBLIC INSTITUTION
BİR KAMU KURUMUNDA SPOR YÖNETİCİLERİNİN LİDERLİK BOYUTLARININ ARAŞTIRILMASI
Ahmet USLU
Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa, Graduate School of Education, Department of Sport Management Sciences, PhD Student, Istanbul/Turkey
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9179-6176
Associate Prof.Dr. Selçuk Bora ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Istanbul University Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Istanbul/Turkey ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4163-9655
ABSTRACT
Sports management is a profession that requires very important qualifications in line with the general goals and principles of sports. One of these qualities and the most important is that he is an example and leader to those under his command and those around him. In this study, the leadership dimensions of sports managers working in a public institution were investigated and examined. The working group of the research consists of the administrators working within the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Spor Istanbul AŞ. There are 114 managers working within the body of Spor İstanbul AŞ on a voluntary basis. Data collection tools used in research; demographic information questionnaire and Self-Leadership Scale developed by Anderson and Prussia (1997) and adapted to Turkish by Tabak, Sığrı and Türköz (2013) were used. The analysis of the data obtained within the scope of the research was carried out in the SPSS 25.0 program. It was determined that the data did not show normal distribution. In this direction, Kruskal Wallis test, one of the nonparametric tests, was used. The analyzes were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval (p <0.05). As a result of the analysis, it was seen that the self-leadership scale results of sports managers were high. In addition, a significant difference was found between the groups according to age, education level and professional experience. In this context, training, seminars, conferences, workshops, etc. for the development of leadership qualities of sports managers. editable; It has been suggested to plan various organizations within the scope of the relevant institutions and organizations.
Key words: Sports Manager, Leadership, Self-Leadership ÖZET
Spor yöneticiliği, sporun genel amaç ve ilkeleri doğrultusunda çok önemli nitelikler gerektiren bir meslektir. Bu niteliklerden biri ve en önemlisi, emrindeki ve çevresindekilere örnek ve lider olmasıdır. Bu doğrultuda yapılan çalışmada, bir kamu kurumunda görev yapmakta olan spor yöneticilerinin liderlik boyutları araştırılmış ve incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Spor İstanbul AŞ bünyesinde çalışmakta olan yöneticiler oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada gönüllülük esasına bağlı olarak Spor İstanbul AŞ bünyesinde çalışmakta olan 114 yönetici yer almaktadır. Araştırma kullanılan veri toplama araçları; demografik bilgi anketi ve Anderson ve Prussia (1997) tarafından geliştirilen Tabak, Sığrı ve Türköz (2013) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan Öz Liderlik Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında elde edilen verilerin analizi SPSS 25,0 programında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin normal dağılım göstermediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda parametrik olmayan testlerden Kruskal Wallis testi kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler %95 güven aralığında (p<0,05) değerlendirilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda spor yöneticilerinin öz liderlik ölçeği sonuçlarının yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca yaş, eğitim durumu ve mesleki tecrübeye göre gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda spor yöneticilerinin liderlik vasıflarının geliştirilmesine yönelik eğitim, seminer, konferans, atölye çalışması vb. düzenlenebilir; ilgili kurum ve kuruluş kapsamında çeşitli organizasyonlar planlanması önerilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Spor Yöneticisi, Liderlik, Öz Liderlik 1. INTRODUCTION
Sport is a phenomenon that extends from the beginning of humanity to this date. The movement, which started with the existence of humanity, has come from antiquity to the present day with activities such as war and hunting for the necessity of nutrition in order to survive. With the increase in the cultural level of their society, sports have become movements aimed at developing and strengthening various aspects of the body. This process, which started with the history of humanity, showed a strong change and development and formed the
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES 2021 7 (40) JUNE organizational structure of today's movements. Today, sports activities for many purposes have turned into a phenomenon that attracts attention both nationally and internationally. Sports activities are carried out for many purposes such as income from sports, record breaking activities, and national prestige. Sports, which is directly related to the level of development in the socio-cultural field, is of great importance in societies. If we look at sports management; The most important factor in the development and dissemination of sports, in raising elite athletes, in generating income and achieving success in the national and international arena is the good management of sports. The management process, which we know as the decision-making process, aims to reach the target by making the right decisions. Sports management is a branch of management sciences that deals with sports-related policy, decisions and activities aimed at achieving goals. The activities carried out to achieve the goal in sports also constitute sports management.
A manager is someone who is intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced and uses leadership qualities while achieving an organization's goals. Leadership is the ability to persuade others to achieve certain goals with enthusiasm and enthusiasm. Leadership encompasses a relationship between the manager and the managed. The concepts of leader and manager are different from each other because leadership is a part of management. Managers create ideas, make decisions, plan, organize, motivate, communicate and control etc. performs functions. Among all these functions, there are also functions of guiding and leading. Thus, the manager motivates the people working in the organization by using his leadership qualities and provides the expected benefits from the management functions by directing them in line with the goals of the organization. Leadership is the final act that leads an organization and its people and its full potential to success. Leadership is an indispensable element for organizations to be successful (Yetim, 2019).
Establishment and operation of the elements that make up sports institutions and organizations; There is also a leadership role in sports management, which tries to ensure that sports activities are carried out in the best way. Sports management is a profession that requires very important qualifications in line with the general goals and principles of sports. One of these qualities and the most important is that he is an example and leader to those under his command and those around him. As a matter of fact, in the study, the leadership dimensions of sports managers working in a public institution were researched and examined. The problem sentence of the research is what are the leadership dimensions of sports managers working in Spor Istanbul A.Ş. (a public institution)?
Sub-problems of the research;
What are the leadership dimensions of the sports managers involved in the research?
What are the leadership dimensions of the sports managers in the research according to the age variable? What are the leadership dimensions of the sports managers who took part in the research according to the
education level variable?
What are the leadership dimensions of the sports managers in the research according to the professional experience variable?
The hypotheses of the research;
1. Hypothesis: The leadership dimensions of the sports managers involved in the research are high (above average).
2. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the dimensions of behavior-oriented leadership according to the age variable of the sports managers in the research.
3. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the natural reward leadership dimensions of the sports managers involved in the study according to the age variable.
4. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the constructive thought leadership dimensions of the sports managers involved in the study, according to the age variable.
5. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the behavioral-oriented leadership dimensions according to the educational status of the sports managers in the study.
6. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the natural reward leadership dimensions according to the educational status of the sports managers in the research.
7. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the dimensions of constructive thought and leadership according to the educational status of the sports managers in the study.
8. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the behavioral-oriented leadership dimensions according to the professional experience variable of the sports managers in the research. 9. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the natural reward leadership dimensions
according to the professional experience variable of the sports managers in the research.
10. Hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference between the dimensions of constructive thought and leadership according to the professional experience variable of the sports managers in the research. The assumptions and limitations of the research;
It was assumed that the sports managers in the study answered the scale sincerely. The research is limited to 114 sports managers working at Spor Istanbul A.Ş.
2. METHOD
Survey research model, one of the quantitative research methods, is used in the research. Screening research is research that aims to collect data to determine certain characteristics of a particular group (Büyüköztürk et al., 2014). Examining the relationship between the items in the questionnaire applied to the participants and the findings of the scale falls within the scope of the correlational screening model.
2.1. Study Group of the Research
The working group of the research consists of the managers working in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Spor Istanbul AŞ. There are 114 managers working within the body of Spor İstanbul AŞ on a voluntary basis in the research.
2.2. Data Collection Tools
Developed (Self-Leadership Questionnaire-SLQ) by Anderson and Prussia (1997) in relation to the research of leadership dimensions, it consists of 29 items that were later confirmed by Houghton and Neck (2002) and later adapted into Turkish by Tabak, Sığır, and Türköz (2013). The 'Self-Leadership Questionnaire-SLQ' will be used. The Cronbach alpha value of the scale was found to be (α=.886). Goodness of fit values obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis; X2/sd=2.90, GFI=.96, NFI=.91, RMSEA=.07, IFI=.94, CFI=.94, TLI=.91, RMR=.04. The Self-Leadership Scale consists of eight sub-dimensions. The Scale consists of 3 dimensions: Behavior-Oriented Strategies, Born Reward Strategies, and Constructive Thinking Model Strategies, and Dreaming of Successful Performance by Setting Goals (1,8,16,17,23,24,28), Self-talk (2,9,18 ), Reward (3,19,10), Evaluation of Thoughts and Ideas (4,11,20,25), Punishment (5,12,21,26), Self-Observation (6,13,22,27) It consists of 8 sub-dimensions: Focusing On Natural Rewards (14,29) and Setting Reminders for Yourself (7,15). Due to the problems arising from the negative effects of the items that make up the self-punishment strategy of the scale, four items that make up this dimension were included in the evaluations by being reverse coded. As a result of the reliability and validity study conducted by the researchers, it was stated that the scale was reliable and valid at acceptable values. (Tabak et al., 2013). Demographic characteristics in the applied survey study; age, education status, working time as a manager parameters are included.
2.3. Study Group of the Research
The working group of the research consists of the managers working in the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Spor Istanbul AŞ. There are 114 managers working within the body of Spor İstanbul AŞ on a voluntary basis in the research.
2.4. Data Collection Tools
Developed (Self-Leadership Questionnaire-SLQ) by Anderson and Prussia (1997) in relation to the research of leadership dimensions, it consists of 29 items that were later confirmed by Houghton and Neck (2002) and later adapted into Turkish by Tabak, Sığır, and Türköz (2013). The 'Self-Leadership Questionnaire-SLQ' will be used. The Cronbach alpha value of the scale was found to be (α=.886). Goodness of fit values obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis; X2/sd=2.90, GFI=.96, NFI=.91, RMSEA=.07, IFI=.94, CFI=.94, TLI=.91, RMR=.04. The Self-Leadership Scale consists of eight sub-dimensions. The Scale consists of 3
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES 2021 7 (40) JUNE dimensions: Behavior-Oriented Strategies, Born Reward Strategies, and Constructive Thinking Model Strategies, and Dreaming of Successful Performance by Setting Goals (1,8,16,17,23,24,28), Self-talk (2,9,18), Reward (3,19,10), Evaluation of Thoughts and Ideas (4,11,20,25), Punishment (5,12,21,26), Self-Observation (6,13,22,27) It consists of 8 sub-dimensions: Focusing On Natural Rewards (14,29) and Setting Reminders for Yourself (7,15). Due to the problems arising from the negative effects of the items that make up the self-punishment strategy of the scale, four items that make up this dimension were included in the evaluations by being reverse coded. As a result of the reliability and validity study conducted by the researchers, it was stated that the scale was reliable and valid at acceptable values. (Tabak et al., 2013). Demographic characteristics in the applied survey study; age, education status, working time as a manager parameters are included.
2.5. Data Collection
The 'Self-Leadership Scale', which was determined to be used in the research, was applied to the sports managers who formed the study group after the necessary approvals were obtained by the researcher. Before the questionnaire and scale were applied, the purpose of the research was explained to the participants and the necessary warnings were made by explaining the points to be considered. The application of the data collection tool was based on the voluntary participation of sports managers and the collected questionnaires and scale forms were evaluated and 12 forms that were filled incompletely or incorrectly were excluded from the scope of the research. Then, valid and acceptable scales of the applied questionnaires and scales were transferred to the computer environment and evaluated with appropriate statistics.
2.6. Data Analysis
The analysis of the data obtained within the scope of the research was analyzed in the SPSS 25.0 program. In the evaluation of the data, frequency, arithmetic mean and standard deviation values were calculated. Afterwards, it was tested whether the data showed normal distribution or not and it was determined that they did not show normal distribution according to the data in Table 1 and Table 2. In this direction, Kruskal Wallis test, one of the nonparametric tests, was used. The analyzes were evaluated at the 95% confidence interval (p<0.05). In this study, the Cronbach's alpha value of the scale was found as α=.81.
3. RESULTS
The self-leadership scale data applied to 114 sports managers working in Spor Istanbul were analyzed and the results were tabulated.
The demographic information of the participants in the research is included in Table 4.1. Table 1. Frequency (f) and Percentage (%) Findings of Personal Information Form
Variables Frequency (f) Percent (%)
Age 25-29 6 5,3 30-34 43 37,7 35-39 25 21,9 40-44 26 22,8 45-49 10 8,8 50 over 4 3,5 Total 114 100,0 Marital status 1-2 years 26 22,8 3-4 years 37 32,5 5-6 years 27 23,7
7 years and over 24 21,1
Total 114 100,00 Educational status High School 2 1,8 Associate Degree 4 3,5 Licence 85 74,6 Master 21 18,4 Doctor 2 1,8 Total 114 100,0
When Table 4.2 is examined, it is seen that the average of the general score of the self-leadership scale is 110.11±11.83. The mean of the behavior-oriented sub-dimension was 46.41±6.77; the mean of the natural reward sub-dimension was 8.29±1.17; it was determined that the mean of constructive thinking sub-dimension
was 55.40±5.99. When the averages obtained are examined, it has been determined that the leadership dimensions of the sports managers working at Spor Istanbul A.Ş.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Results of Self-Leadership Scale and Scale Sub-Dimensions
Lower Dimension /Scale N Min Max Average Standard deviation Behavior-Oriented 114 33,00 63,00 46,4123 6,76902
Natural Reward 114 4,00 10,00 8,2895 1,17288
Constructive Thinking 114 41,00 68,00 55,4035 5,98925
Self-Leadership Scale (total) 114 84,00 136,00 110,1053 11,82944 When Table 4.3 is examined, descriptive statistics of 8 sub-factors belonging to sub-dimensions are seen. The average of the self-rewarding sub-factor is 10.29 ± 2.73; the mean of the self-punishment sub-factor was 12.13±4.08; the mean of the observation sub-factor was 16.79±2.19; the mean of determining self-reminders sub-factor was 7.02±1.90; the mean of focusing thought on natural rewards sub-factor was 8.29±1.17; the mean of imagining successful performance by setting goals for oneself was 28.08±3.10; It was concluded that the mean of the self-talk sub-factor was 10.87±2.63 and the mean of the evaluation of thoughts and ideas was 16.46±2.14. According to the results obtained, it has been determined that the leadership dimensions of sports managers working in Spor Istanbul A.Ş. are high.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Self-Leadership Scale Sub-Factors
Lower dimension Sub-Factors N Min Max Average Standard deviation
Behavior-Oriented
Self-Reward 114 4,00 15,00 10,2895 2,72882
Self-Punishment 114 4,00 19,00 12,3158 4,07521
Self-Observation 114 12,00 20,00 16,7895 2,19200
Setting Reminders for Yourself 114 3,00 10,00 7,0175 1,89542
Natural Reward Focusing the Thought on Natural Rewards 114 4,00 10,00 8,2895 1,17288
Constructive Thinking
Imagining Successful Performance by Setting a Goal for Oneself
114 21,00 35,00 28,0789 3,09480
Self-Talk 114 4,00 15,00 10,8684 2,62565
Evaluating Thoughts and Ideas 114 9,00 20,00 16,4561 2,13749 Table 4.4 shows the evaluation of the sub-factors of the behavior-oriented sub-dimension according to age. It was observed that there was no significant difference between the groups according to age in the sub-factors of self-rewarding and determining self-reminders (p>0.05). Although there was no significant difference, it was observed that the 45-49 age group had the highest average in the sub-factor of self-rewarding and the 25-29 age group in the sub-factor of setting reminders. In the sub-factor of self-punishment, between the 25-25-29 age group and the 40-44 age group, the 40-44 age group and the 45-49 age group; In the self-observation sub-factor, a statistically significant difference was found between the 35-39 age group and the over 50 age group, the 35-39 age group and the 40-44 age group, and the 35-39 age group and the 30-34 age group (p <0, 05). Table 4. Kruskal Wallis Test Results for Sub-Factors of Behavior-Oriented Sub-Dimension by Age
Sub-Factors Age N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Self-Reward 25-291 6 6,00 13,00 9,3333 3,14113 8,794 5 ,118 - 30-342 43 4,00 15,00 10,5814 2,72757 35-393 25 7,00 13,00 10,4000 2,17945 40-444 26 5,00 15,00 10,1923 3,09863 45-495 10 8,00 13,00 11,1000 2,18327 50 over6 4 5,00 8,00 6,5000 1,73205 Self-Punishment 25-291 6 6,00 11,00 9,0000 2,36643 20,881 5 ,001* 1-4, 4-5 30-342 43 5,00 18,00 12,3953 4,03638 35-393 25 4,00 17,00 11,9200 4,31007 40-444 26 9,00 19,00 14,8462 2,16688 45-495 10 4,00 14,00 9,5000 4,37798 50 over6 4 5,00 14,00 9,5000 5,19615 Self-Observation 25-291 6 16,00 19,00 17,6667 1,36626 19,333 5 ,002* 3-6, 3-4, 2-3 30-342 43 13,00 20,00 16,5581 2,15254 35-393 25 14,00 20,00 18,0800 2,10000 40-444 26 12,00 20,00 16,1154 1,75104 45-495 10 13,00 20,00 16,7000 2,86938 50 over6 4 14,00 15,00 14,5000 ,57735 Setting Reminders for Yourself 25-291 6 7,00 10,00 8,0000 1,54919 7,705 5 ,173 - 30-342 43 4,00 10,00 7,4419 1,70855 35-393 25 3,00 10,00 6,2000 2,16025 40-444 26 4,00 9,00 7,0000 1,83303
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES 2021 7 (40) JUNE
45-495 10 5,00 10,00 6,9000 1,96921
50 over6 4 5,00 8,00 6,5000 1,73205
Table 4.5 shows the evaluation of the focus of thought on natural rewards sub-factor according to age. As a result of the analysis, a statistically significant difference was found between the 25-29 age group and the 35-39 age group (p<0.05).
Table 5. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Natural Reward Sub-Dimension by Age
Sub-Factors Age N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Focusing the Thought on Natural Rewards 25-291 6 6,00 10,00 7,6667 1,86190 12,213 5 ,032* 1-3 30-342 43 6,00 10,00 8,1628 ,92402 35-393 25 7,00 10,00 8,7200 ,97980 40-444 26 7,00 10,00 8,5769 ,85665 45-495 10 7,00 10,00 8,3000 1,25167 50 over6 4 4,00 8,00 6,0000 2,30940
Table 4.6 includes the evaluation of the sub-factors of the constructive thinking sub-dimension according to age. In the sub-factor of imagining successful performance by setting goals for oneself, between the age group of 25-29 and the age group over 50, between the age group of 30-34 and the age group over 50, and between the age group of 35-39 and the over 50 age group; between the 30-34 age group and the 45-49 age group in the self-talk sub-factor; In the sub-factor of evaluating thoughts and ideas, a statistically significant difference was found between the 35-39 age group and the over 50 age group (p<0.05).
Table 6. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of the Sub-Factors of the Constructive Thinking Sub-Dimension by Age
Sub-Factors Age N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Imagining Successful Performance by Setting a Goal for Oneself 25-291 6 25,00 35,00 31,0000 4,73286 16,861 5 ,005* 1-6, 2-6, 3-6 30-342 43 23,00 34,00 28,5349 2,75464 35-393 25 21,00 33,00 28,5200 3,61847 40-444 26 24,00 32,00 27,5000 2,24944 45-495 10 25,00 30,00 26,4000 2,06559 50 over6 4 23,00 25,00 24,0000 1,15470 Self-Talk 25-291 6 9,00 12,00 10,3333 1,36626 13,430 5 ,020* 2-5 30-342 43 8,00 15,00 11,8372 1,85074 35-393 25 4,00 15,00 10,4000 3,61709 40-444 26 7,00 13,00 10,9615 2,12567 45-495 10 5,00 12,00 8,7000 3,09300 50 over6 4 8,00 10,00 9,0000 1,15470 Evaluating Thoughts and Ideas 25-291 6 15,00 20,00 17,3333 2,25093 11,994 5 ,035* 3-6 30-342 43 14,00 19,00 16,2093 1,44021 35-393 25 12,00 20,00 17,2400 2,65016 40-444 26 15,00 19,00 16,5000 1,27279 45-495 10 14,00 20,00 16,7000 2,49666 50 over6 4 9,00 15,00 12,0000 3,46410
Table 4.7 presents the evaluation of the sub-factors of the behavior-oriented sub-dimension according to educational status. It was observed that there was no significant difference between the groups according to educational status in the sub-factors of self-reward and self-observation (p>0.05). Although there was no significant difference, it was seen that sports managers with master's and doctorate education levels had a higher average. Among those who received undergraduate and graduate education in the sub-factor of self-punishment; associate degree and undergraduate degree in determining self-reminders; bachelor's and doctorate; A statistically significant difference was found between those who received graduate and doctorate education (p<0.05).
Table 7. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Behavior-Oriented Sub-Dimension According to Education Status
Sub-Factors Education status N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Self-Reward High School1 2 12,00 12,00 12,0000 ,00000 3,280 4 ,512 - Associate Degree2 4 8,00 13,00 10,5000 2,88675 Licence3 85 4,00 15,00 10,0824 2,83352 Master4 21 6,00 15,00 10,9524 2,47944 Doctor5 2 10,00 10,00 10,0000 ,00000 Self-Punishment High School1 2 16,00 16,00 16,0000 ,00000 14,888 4 ,005* 3-4 Associate Degree2 4 5,00 11,00 8,0000 3,46410 Licence3 85 4,00 18,00 12,9294 3,68972
Master4 21 4,00 19,00 10,1429 4,78838 Doctor5 2 14,00 14,00 14,0000 ,00000 Self-Observation High School1 2 16,00 16,00 16,0000 ,00000 ,924 4 ,921 - Associate Degree2 4 15,00 19,00 17,0000 2,30940 Licence3 85 12,00 20,00 16,7412 2,21011 Master4 21 13,00 20,00 16,9048 2,36442 Doctor5 2 18,00 18,00 18,0000 ,00000 Setting Reminders for Yourself High School1 2 8,00 8,00 8,0000 ,00000 11,051 4 ,026* 2-3, 3-5, 4-5 Associate Degree2 4 8,00 10,00 9,0000 1,15470 Licence3 85 3,00 10,00 6,7765 1,95410 Master4 21 6,00 10,00 7,2381 1,41084 Doctor5 2 10,00 10,00 10,0000 ,00000
In Table 4.8, the evaluation of the focus of thought on natural rewards factor of natural reward sub-dimension according to education level is given. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that there was no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). On the other hand, it is seen that the highest average belongs to the group that received doctoral education.
Table 4.8. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Natural Reward Sub-Dimension by Educational Status
Sub-Factors Education status N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Focusing the Thought on Natural Rewards High School1 2 8,00 8,00 8,0000 ,00000 6,573 4 ,160 - Associate Degree2 4 8,00 10,00 9,0000 1,15470 Licence3 85 4,00 10,00 8,2353 1,18168 Master4 21 6,00 10,00 8,2381 1,13599 Doctor5 2 10,00 10,00 10,0000 ,00000
In Table 4.9, the evaluation of the sub-factors of the constructive thinking sub-dimension according to education level is given. It was observed that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the sub-factors of determining goals and imagining successful performance and evaluating thoughts and ideas (p> 0.05). Although there is no statistically significant difference, it is seen that the highest average is in the group with doctoral education. On the other hand, in the self-talk sub-factor, a statistically significant difference was found between those with associate degree and doctorate education (p<0.05).
Table 4.9. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Constructive Thinking Sub-Dimension by Educational Status
Sub-Factors Education status N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Imagining Successful Performance by Setting a Goal for Oneself High School1 2 29,00 29,00 29,0000 ,00000 6,301 4 ,178 - Associate Degree2 4 25,00 33,00 29,0000 4,61880 Licence3 85 21,00 33,00 27,9176 2,90816 Master4 21 23,00 35,00 27,9048 3,38976 Doctor5 2 34,00 34,00 34,0000 ,00000
Self-Talk High School1 2 12,00 12,00 12,0000 ,00000 10,964 4 ,027* 2-5
Associate Degree2 4 8,00 9,00 8,5000 ,57735 Licence3 85 4,00 15,00 10,9882 2,61176 Master4 21 5,00 13,00 10,3333 2,63312 Doctor5 2 15,00 15,00 15,0000 ,00000 Evaluating Thoughts and Ideas High School1 2 16,00 16,00 16,0000 ,00000 3,267 4 ,514 - Associate Degree2 4 15,00 17,00 16,0000 1,15470 Licence3 85 9,00 20,00 16,3529 2,14202 Master4 21 14,00 20,00 16,7619 2,34318 Doctor5 2 19,00 19,00 19,0000 ,00000
Table 4.10 shows the evaluation of the sub-factors of the behavior-oriented sub-dimension according to professional experience. It was observed that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of self-rewarding and self-observation sub-factors according to professional experience (p> 0.05). On the other hand, it is seen that the groups with the highest average are those with 5-6 years and 3-4 years of professional experience, respectively. In the self-punishment sub-factor, between 1-2 years and 7 years and over; 1-2 years and 5-6 years in the sub-factor of determining self-reminders; A statistically significant difference was found between those with 5-6 years and 7 years and over professional experience (p<0.05).
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES 2021 7 (40) JUNE Table 4.10. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Behavior-Oriented Sub-Dimension According to Professional Experience
Sub-Factors Experience N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 d f p Difference Self-Reward 1-2 yıl1 26 8,00 15,00 10,5385 2,37033 4,138 3 ,247 - 3-4 yıl2 37 5,00 15,00 9,7297 2,96881 5-6 yıl3 27 4,00 15,00 10,7778 3,05505
7 years and over4 24 5,00 12,00 10,3333 2,29682
Self-Punishment
1-2 yıl1 26 5,00 18,00 10,6538 3,77298 13,386 3 ,004* 1-4
3-4 yıl2 37 4,00 19,00 13,1081 4,14852
5-6 yıl3 27 4,00 16,00 10,9630 4,74327
7 years and over4 24 10,00 16,00 14,4167 1,69184
Self-Observation
1-2 yıl1 26 13,00 20,00 16,6538 2,31417 5,627 3 ,131 -
3-4 yıl2 37 14,00 20,00 17,5946 2,03387
5-6 yıl3 27 12,00 20,00 16,2222 2,51661
7 years and over4 24 14,00 20,00 16,3333 1,57885
Setting Reminders for Yourself 1-2 yıl1 26 5,00 10,00 7,9231 1,52113 16,324 3 ,001* 1-3, 3-4 3-4 yıl2 37 4,00 10,00 6,7027 1,64764 5-6 yıl3 27 4,00 10,00 6,0741 1,95971
7 years and over4 24 3,00 10,00 7,5833 2,01983
In Table 4.11, the evaluation of the focus of thought on natural rewards factor of the natural reward sub-dimension according to professional experience is given. As a result of the analysis, 1-2 years and 3-4 years; A statistically significant difference was found between those with 3-4 years and 7 years and over professional experience (p<0.05).
Table 4.11. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Natural Reward Sub-Dimension by Professional Experience
Sub-Factors Experience N Min Max Average Standard deviation X2 df p Difference Focusing the Thought on Natural Rewards 1-2 yıl1 26 7,00 10,00 8,1154 ,90893 11,953 3 ,008* 1-2, 2-4 3-4 yıl2 37 6,00 10,00 8,7027 1,07664 5-6 yıl3 27 7,00 10,00 8,2222 1,12090
7 years and over4 24 4,00 10,00 7,9167 1,47196
Table 4.12 shows the evaluation of the sub-factors of the constructive thinking sub-dimension according to professional experience. It was observed that there was no significant difference between the groups according to professional experience in the sub-factors of imagining successful performance by setting self-targets and speaking to oneself (p>0.05). Although there is no significant difference, it is seen that the highest average is the group with 3-4 years of professional experience. In the sub-factor of evaluating thoughts and ideas, between 3-4 years and 7 years and over; A statistically significant difference was found between those with 5-6 years and 7 years and over professional experience (p<0.05).
Table 4.12. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of Sub-Factors of Constructive Thinking Sub-Dimension According to Professional Experience
Sub-Factors Experience N Min Max Average Standard deviation
X2 df p Difference Imagining
Successful Performance by Setting a Goal for Oneself 1-2 yıl1 26 25,00 33,00 28,0385 3,20600 7,767 3 ,051 - 3-4 yıl2 37 25,00 35,00 29,2162 3,09242 5-6 yıl3 27 23,00 33,00 27,0741 2,63009 7 years and over4 24 21,00 31,00 27,5000 3,07868 Self-Talk 1-2 yıl1 26 4,00 14,00 10,3462 2,96570 6,251 3 ,100 - 3-4 yıl2 37 5,00 15,00 11,4595 2,93063 5-6 yıl3 27 5,00 12,00 10,2222 2,30940 7 years and over4 24 7,00 13,00 11,2500 1,82376 Evaluating Thoughts and Ideas 1-2 yıl1 26 12,00 19,00 15,9231 1,83135 13,104 3 ,004* 2-4, 3-4 3-4 yıl2 37 15,00 20,00 17,1622 2,04822 5-6 yıl3 27 14,00 20,00 17,1481 1,83353 7 years and over4 24 9,00 18,00 15,1667 2,23931
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Spor Istanbul A.S. The data obtained within the scope of the study in which the leadership dimensions of the sports managers working in the organization were analyzed.
As a result of the analysis, it was seen that the results of the self-leadership scale of the sports managers were high.
When the scale findings were evaluated according to the age variable, it was observed that there was a significant difference in six of the eight sub-factors. It is seen that the sports managers in the 35-39 and 40-44 age groups have the highest averages in the groups in which there is a statistically significant difference. Generally, managers aged 50 and over received the lowest averages. In this case, it is concluded that age is an effective factor on leadership. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that managers aged 50 and over have a lower level of leadership competencies compared to other age groups. It is thought that the aforementioned result may be due to various factors such as a decrease in the level of organizational commitment, the negative impact of long-term professional experience on motivation and job performance, physical and mental fatigue, inability to improve oneself and to update knowledge. Looking at the studies in the literature, Demiröz (2015) states in his study on the self-leadership perceptions of young employees that self-leadership behaviors are much higher in young people, that they decrease with age, and that self-leadership behaviors are seen much more especially in employees aged 19 and younger. In their study, Çakmaka and Uğurluoğlu (2019) found that the average of the self-rewarding sub-dimension of the participants aged 34 and younger was higher than the average of the participants aged 35 and above, while the average of the participants aged 35 and above regarding the self-observation sub-dimension was higher than the average of the participants aged 34 and younger. found high and stated that the averages of other sub-dimensions did not differ statistically significantly according to the age of the participants. Uğurluoğlu (2010) in his study on personnel working in a private hospital in Ankara stated that age is one of the factors affecting self-leadership strategies and that older employees are more likely to use self-leadership strategies than younger employees. These studies support our study results.
When the scale findings were evaluated according to education level, it was seen that there was a significant difference in three of the eight sub-factors. Among the groups in which there is a statistically significant difference, high school education in the self-punishment sub-factor, determining self-reminders and speaking to oneself sub-factor, it is seen that the sports managers who have doctorate education have the highest average. According to the results obtained, it was concluded that the level of education can be effective on leadership. Although there is no significant difference, it is noteworthy that the group with doctoral education generally had high averages in other sub-factors. In this case, it can be said that managers can improve their leadership skills depending on the training received. Considering the studies in the literature, Arlı (2011) and Arlı and Avcı (2017) stated that there are differences between education level and self-leadership perceptions in the dimensions of self-rewarding, focusing thoughts on natural rewards, and evaluating thoughts and ideas. demonstrated leadership behaviors. Similarly, in the study conducted by Ay (2017), it was interpreted that the managers with a doctorate degree had a higher level of differentiation in all dimensions, except for the setting of reminders, compared to those in other education groups, and this was interpreted as the level of self-leadership of the managers increased as the education level of the managers increased, Türköz (2010) In the study conducted by the research, it was found that the use of self-leadership strategies increased with the increase in the education level of the participants. The results of these studies support the results of our study. When the scale findings were evaluated according to professional experience, it was observed that there was a significant difference in four of the eight sub-factors. Among the groups in which there is a statistically significant difference, sports managers with 7 years or more of professional experience in the sub-factor of self-punishment, 1-2 years of determining self-reminders, and 3-4 years of professional experience in the sub-factor of focusing thoughts on natural rewards and evaluating thoughts and ideas have the highest average. is seen. In the results obtained, it is seen that the groups with different experiences have high averages and managers with different qualifications in different fields come to the fore. In this case, it can be stated that the period of professional experience is an effective factor on leadership. In another study conducted by Arlı and Avcı (2017), it was stated that the total working time made a significant difference on the dimensions of "rewarding oneself", "self-talk" and "evaluating thoughts and ideas". indicated that their tendency to exhibit leadership behaviors decreased. In the study conducted by Yavuz and Ayhan (2019), no statistically significant difference was found in the total working time of the personnel participating in the research and in the dimensions of self-leadership excluding the sub-dimension of self-punishment, the difference in the dimension of self-punishment was between 5 years and 6-10 and 5 years. It is stated that there is a statistically significant difference between 11 and 15 years. In their study, Çakmaka and Uğurluoğlu (2019) found that the averages of the participants in the sub-dimensions of self-reward and self-observation differed statistically according to the total working time in the sector, and that the average of the self-reward sub-dimension of the participants
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, HUMANITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES 2021 7 (40) JUNE who had worked in the sector for 10 years or more was 11 years or more. In the self-observation dimension, they stated that the average of the participants who have worked in the sector for 11 years or more is higher than the average of the participants who have worked in the sector for 10 years or less. The results of these studies support the results of our study.
As a result of the research, the following recommendations are made;
Training, seminars, conferences, workshops, etc. for the development of leadership skills of sports managers. editable; Various organizations can be planned within the scope of the relevant institution and organization.
Continuation of professional development throughout business life should be encouraged. Thus, it is thought that the decrease in managerial performance with increasing age can be prevented.
It is predicted that choosing sports managers from people with a high level of education or ensuring that current sports managers continue their education can have a positive effect on leadership skills.
Findings obtained by repeating similar studies in different public institutions can be compared and contribute to the literature.
REFERENCES
Arlı, Ö. (2011). Bazı öncül ve ardıllarıyla öz liderlik: İlköğretim öğretmenleri üzerine bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kara Harp Okulu, Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Arlı,Ö. Ve Avcı, A. (2017). “Öz Kendilik Değerlendirmesinin Öz Liderlik Davranışları Üzerinde Etkisi: İlköğretim Öğretmenleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(22). 456-468.
Ay, G. (2017), “Yönetici Ve Yönetici Asistanlarının Öz Liderlik Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma”, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(52), 929-940.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma
yöntemleri (14. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları
Çakmaka, C. ve Uğurluoğlu, Ö. (2019). “Sağlık Çalışanlarının Öz Liderlik Düzeylerinin Sosyo-Demografik Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi”, Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(3) 219– 231.
Demiröz, K. C. (2015). Genç çalışanların öz liderlik algılarıyla yöneticilerinin çatışma yönetimi tarzı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Okan Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Tabak, A., Sığrı, Ü. ve Türköz, T. (2009). Öz liderlik (kendi kendine liderlik) ölçeği Türkçe formu uyarlama
çalışması. 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Osmangazi Üniversitesi,
Eskişehir.
Türköz, T. (2010). Çalışanların Öz Liderlik Algısının İzlenim Yönetimi Taktiklerini Kullanımlarına Olan Etkileri: Savunma Sanayinde Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kara Harp Okulu Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü Savunma Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı.
Uğurluoğlu, Ö. (2010). “Kendi Kendine Liderlik Stratejileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi, 24(1), 175-191.
Yavuz, E. ve Ayhan, B. (2019). “Kamu Örgütlerinde Öz Liderlik Düzeyinin Belirlenmesi”, Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(17), 1002-1029.
